OPM's Central Personnel Data File: Data Appear Sufficiently Reliable to
Meet Most Customer Needs (Chapter Report, 09/30/98, GAO/GGD-98-199).

Each year, hundreds of federal personnel offices process millions of
personnel actions, such as pay adjustments and promotions, that affect
about 1.9 million federal workers. The Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) collects data on these personnel actions and processes them
through its Central Personnel Data System for entry into its personnel
database, the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF). Policymakers use that
database to obtain statistics on federal employees, ensure agencies'
compliance with governmentwide policies, and make decisions on federal
personnel policy. Researchers also use the data in studies of the
federal workforce. Despite these important uses, the data have not been
independently evaluated. This report determines (1) the extent to which
selected CPDF data elements are accurate, including the data elements
used by OPM's Office of the Actuaries for estimating the government's
liability for future payments of federal retirement programs; (2)
whether users of CPDF data believed that CPDF products met their needs;
and (3) whether OPM has documented changes to the System and verified
the System's acceptance of those changes, as recommended in applicable
federal guidance, and whether the System would implement the CPDF edits
as intended.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-98-199
     TITLE:  OPM's Central Personnel Data File: Data Appear Sufficiently 
             Reliable to Meet Most Customer Needs
      DATE:  09/30/98
   SUBJECT:  Data integrity
             Civilian employees
             Personnel management
             Federal employees
             Systems development life cycle
             Management information systems
             Data bases
             Computer software verification and validation
             Personnel records
IDENTIFIER:  Software Capability Maturity Model
             OPM Central Personnel Data File
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil Service, Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives

September 1998

OPM'S CENTRAL PERSONNEL DATA FILE
- DATA APPEAR SUFFICIENTLY
RELIABLE TO MEET MOST CUSTOMER
NEEDS

GAO/GGD-98-199

Central Personnel Data File

(410071)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  AID - Agency for International Development
  CMM3 - Capability MaturityModel\SM
  CPDF - Central Personnel Data File
  DOD - Department of Defense
  FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation
  FIPS - Federal Information Processing Standards
  HHS - Health and Human Services
  ILDRS - Installation Level Data Retrieval System
  IT - Information Technology
  NBS - National Bureau of Standards
  OIT - Office of Information Technology
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget
  OPF - Official Personnel Folder
  OPM - Office of Personnel Management
  OWI - Office of Workforce Information
  SDLC - System Development Life Cycle
  SSA - Social Security Administration

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-276095

September 30, 1998

The Honorable John L.  Mica
Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil Service
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

This report presents the results of our review of the Office of
Personnel Management's database of federal civilian employees, the
Central Personnel Data File, which we undertook as part of our basic
legislative authority.  Because of your continuing interest in the
accuracy of this database, you asked that we address this report to
you.  We know that you and other decisionmakers use the information
contained in this database to track statistics on federal employees,
and agencies' compliance with governmentwide policies.  Because this
database is the primary source of information on federal employees,
the accuracy of its information is critical for analyses of the
federal civilian workforce. 

We are sending copies of this report to other appropriate
congressional committees and executive branch agencies, including the
Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, House
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; the Chairman and
Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on International
Security, Proliferation and Federal Services, Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs; and the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management. 

This report was prepared under the direction of Michael Brostek,
Associate Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues, who may
be reached on (202) 512-8676, if you have any questions.  Major
contributors are listed in appendix VIII. 

Sincerely yours,

L.  Nye Stevens
Director, Federal Management
 and Workforce Issues


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0


   PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

Each year, hundreds of federal personnel offices process millions of
personnel actions, such as pay adjustments and promotions, that
affect the working lives of about 1.9 million federal civilian
employees.  The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) collects data on
these personnel actions and processes them through its Central
Personnel Data System (the System) for entry into its personnel
database, the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF).  Policymakers use
CPDF data for such things as obtaining statistics on federal
employees, ensuring agencies' compliance with governmentwide
policies, and making decisions on federal personnel policy. 
Researchers use them in studies of the federal workforce. 

In spite of the important uses of CPDF data, no independent
evaluation of the accuracy of the data has been done.  Because GAO
and others rely on CPDF data to do governmentwide and agency
evaluations, GAO undertook a review of the CPDF and the Central
Personnel Data System as part of its basic legislative authority. 
GAO's objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which selected
CPDF data elements are accurate, including the data elements used by
OPM's Office of the Actuaries for estimating the government's
liability for future payments of federal retirement programs; (2)
whether selected users of CPDF data believed that CPDF products met
their needs, including whether the products were current, accurate,
and complete and whether the cautions OPM provided to them on the
limitations associated with using the data were sufficient for them
to present the CPDF data correctly; and (3) whether OPM has
documented changes to the System and verified the System's acceptance
of those changes, as recommended in applicable federal guidance, and
whether the System would implement CPDF edits as intended. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

The CPDF is a database that contains individual records for most
federal employees and is the primary governmentwide source for
information on federal employees.  The records are made up of data
elements, such as name, pay plan, and veterans status.  As of
February 1998, the CPDF organized its data into 95 separate data
elements.  OPM provides guidelines, edit standards, and feedback to
agencies on when and how to submit data to the CPDF and what they can
do to improve the data they are submitting.  CPDF edits are computer
instructions that are designed to check the validity of individual
data elements.  For example, the edit for the sex data element checks
that the character that is used to define the data element is either
"M" for male or "F" for female; the edit identifies other characters
as errors.  After agencies submit their data, OPM uses the same CPDF
edits it expects agencies to use and other analyses to check that
data submissions meet edit standards.  When data submissions do not
meet the CPDF edit standards, OPM staff are to contact agencies to
ask them to correct problem data. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

OPM does not have an official standard for the desired accuracy of
CPDF data elements.  On a periodic basis, however, OPM measures CPDF
data accuracy by comparing certain data found in a sample of former
federal employees' official personnel folders to data in the CPDF for
the same period.  OPM generally makes the results of its measurements
of CPDF data accuracy available to users of CPDF data within OPM but
not to non-OPM users.  Although the accuracy of the CPDF data GAO
reviewed varied by data element, about two-thirds of the selected
CPDF data elements GAO reviewed were 99-percent or more accurate. 
Among the data elements that were 99-percent accurate were those
OPM's Office of the Actuaries uses for estimating the government's
liability for future retirement payments to federal employees and
their survivors, with the exception of one element--adjusted basic
pay--that was about 94-percent accurate according to one GAO
measurement method.  Prior GAO work also showed that CPDF data
accuracy also varied by agency. 

GAO surveyed all the requesters of CPDF products that OPM identified
as obtaining data directly from OPM for fiscal year 1996.  Most of
these CPDF users reported that CPDF products met their needs,
including the data being current, accurate, and complete.  The
majority of surveyed users reported that they believed that the
caution statements OPM provided were sufficient for them to use CPDF
data correctly.  However, OPM did not provide these users of CPDF
data with all 28 cautions that explain how CPDF limitations could
affect how they present or use CPDF data.  For example, some CPDF
data (e.g., education level) are collected at the time of the
appointment and not routinely updated.  Some users said that they
would have presented or used CPDF data differently if they had known
about all 28 caution statements. 

Although applicable federal guidance recommended that agencies
document the life cycle of an automated information system from its
initiation through installation and operation, OPM did not document
changes that it made to the System in 1986 when it did a major
redesign of the System's software.  OPM also did not have
documentation to show that acceptance testing of those changes was
done and, according to OPM, the testing was not done by an
independent reviewer.  However, OPM officials said that to their
knowledge the System has not had problems processing data reliably. 
GAO's review of the computer instructions for most CPDF edits used by
the System showed that the System uses instructions that should
implement the CPDF edits reviewed as intended.  OPM officials
acknowledged that for OPM to accomplish its future information
technology goals it will have to follow an approach that includes
documenting the development, modification, and management of its
automated information systems and their software applications.  OPM
has committed to adopting this approach by no later than fiscal year
2002. 

GAO is making recommendations to improve the availability of
information about CPDF data accuracy and limitations and to ensure
that future changes to the Central Personnel Data System are
documented and independently verified. 


   PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4


      SELECTED DATA APPEAR TO BE
      MOSTLY ACCURATE IN THE CPDF,
      BUT OPM DOES NOT REPORT
      RESULTS OF ITS ACCURACY
      MEASUREMENTS TO NON-OPM
      USERS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

Although OPM screens data before accepting them, OPM relies on
agencies to submit accurate data.  Thus, the ultimate accuracy of
CPDF data depends on the accuracy of the data that agencies submit. 
Errors in those data can occur at various stages of the personnel
process, such as when agency personnel enter (1) data for newly hired
employees; or (2) information on personnel actions (e.g., performance
appraisals) for submission to OPM.  OPM does not have an official
accuracy standard for agencies' submissions.  On a periodic basis,
however, OPM measures CPDF data accuracy by comparing certain data
found in a sample of former federal employees' official personnel
folders to data in the CPDF for the same period.  OPM generally makes
the results of its measurements of CPDF data accuracy available to
users of CPDF data within OPM but not to non-OPM users. 

To measure the accuracy of CPDF data for its review, GAO asked a
generalizable sample of current federal employees to verify CPDF data
as of September 30, 1996 pertaining to them.\1 GAO also compared data
in the official personnel folders and other records of a
nongeneralizable sample of current federal employees selected from
six of the largest personnel offices to fiscal year 1996 CPDF data.\2
Between the two methods GAO used to measure CPDF data accuracy,
variation existed in the accuracy of some data elements, but at least
63 percent of CPDF data elements in both samples were 99 percent or
more accurate.  The least accurate data element, education level, was
about 73 and 77 percent accurate according to GAO's two measurement
methods.  These results were broadly consistent with OPM's latest
accuracy measurement. 

Although both OPM's and GAO's reviews showed that most CPDF data
elements reviewed were 99 percent or more accurate on a
governmentwide basis, neither OPM nor GAO measured the accuracy of
data for individual agencies.  However, GAO's prior work has shown
that specific data elements for individual agencies can be much less
accurate.  For example, in 1997 the House Committee on International
Relations asked GAO to examine a discrepancy between the number of
certain political appointees that the Agency for International
Development (AID) reported to Congress (17) and the number that
appeared in the CPDF for the period January 19, 1993, through
November 14, 1995, (0).  Through its analysis of the CPDF data, GAO
determined that AID misidentified the legal authority that was used
to appoint these individuals; as a result, the information in the
CPDF did not correctly identify any of the 17 individuals as
political appointees. 

To estimate the government's liability for future retirement
payments, OPM's Office of the Actuaries uses CPDF data on adjusted
basic pay, sex, birth date, retirement plan, and service computation
date.  Except for adjusted base pay, which was about 94-percent
accurate in GAO's nongeneralizable accuracy measurement, GAO found
all of these data to be about 99-percent accurate.  GAO shared these
results with the actuary responsible for calculating the federal
government's liability for future retirement payments to federal
employees and their survivors, and he said that the CPDF data
elements that the Office used were sufficiently accurate for making
this liability estimate. 

Despite the high governmentwide accuracy GAO and OPM found for
selected CPDF data elements, the lower level of accuracy for some
individual data elements could affect the validity of studies relying
on such data.  For instance, GAO's finding that data on federal
employee education levels are about 23- and 27-percent inaccurate in
its generalizable and nongeneralizable measurements, respectively,
suggests that analysts using this data element would need to exercise
caution in drawing conclusions about federal employees' education
levels. 


--------------------
\1 The complete results of GAO's survey appear in appendix V. 

\2 Because they are among the eight largest personnel offices in the
federal government, for its review GAO selected personnel offices at
the Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD; Department of the
Army, Fort Benning, GA; U.S.  Customs Service, Washington, D.C.;
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Department of State,
Washington, D.C.; and Department of the Navy, Pensacola, FL. 


      MOST CPDF USERS SAID CPDF
      PRODUCTS MET THEIR NEEDS,
      BUT SOME SAID FURTHER
      AWARENESS OF CAUTIONS ON
      CPDF DATA COULD AFFECT USE
      OF DATA
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

The questionnaire that GAO sent to users of CPDF data showed that the
majority of respondents believed that CPDF products met their needs. 
GAO's questionnaire asked individuals who requested CPDF products
from OPM in fiscal year 1996 if they believed that (1) the CPDF
products met their needs, including the data being current, accurate,
and complete; and (2) the cautions OPM provided to them on the
limitations associated with using CPDF data or products were
sufficient for them to present the CPDF data correctly. 

The majority of users who responded said that to a great or very
great extent, CPDF products met their needs (67 to 81 percent,
depending on the product); and CPDF data were current (70 to 73
percent), accurate (65 to 87 percent), and complete (71 to 89
percent).  The majority of respondents also reported that they
received sufficient cautions about the limitations of the CPDF data
or products they used.  However, OPM officials said, and respondents'
answers to GAO's questionnaire indicated, that the extent to which
OPM provided users with all of the 28 known cautions on limitations
associated with CPDF data varied.  In this regard, 29 of the 71 CPDF
users said knowing about cautions they were not made aware of would
have affected the way they used or presented CPDF data.  In
discussions with GAO, OPM officials reported they were considering
creating a CPDF web site on the Internet that would allow OPM to make
CPDF data more widely available and allow OPM to "bundle" or link
specific cautions about the limitations associated with specific data
sets. 


      SYSTEM SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
      NOT DOCUMENTED ACCORDING TO
      APPLICABLE FEDERAL GUIDANCE,
      BUT SOFTWARE APPEARS TO
      IMPLEMENT EDITS AS INTENDED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3

From 1976 to 1995, federal guidance recommended that agencies use a
structured approach for operating and maintaining automated
information systems, such as the Central Personnel Data System, which
includes the computer applications that OPM uses to process data for
the CPDF.  According to the guidelines, as part of a structured
approach, agencies were to document the life cycle of an automated
information system from its initiation through its installation and
operation.  Among other things, such documentation helps agencies
efficiently correct system problems even after the system designers
have left an agency. 

Although applicable guidelines recommended such documentation, OPM
did not document changes that were made to the System in 1986 when it
did a major redesign of the System's software or document that the
testing of these changes was independently done to verify that they
worked as intended.  OPM officials said verification of the 1986
changes was done by staff in the unit responsible for designing those
changes.  As described in GAO's guidance on Year 2000 computer
conversions, such testing should be done by an independent reviewer. 
OPM officials said that although the 1986 changes were not
documented, to their knowledge the System has not had problems
processing data reliably.  GAO's review of 718 of the 763 computer
instructions used by the CPDF showed that those instructions should
implement CPDF edits as intended. 

OPM officials said that for OPM to accomplish its information
technology goals it will have to follow a structured approach for
future computer application development.  The software development
goal stated in OPM's Information Technology Architecture Vision would
require that by 2002 newly developed, or newly modified, computer
systems and programs would be developed under a systematic,
well-documented approach.  However, it is not clear how soon this
requirement is to be implemented. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

GAO recommends that the Director of OPM

  -- make the results of its historical measurements of the CPDF's
     accuracy available to all users,

  -- make the 28 caution statements associated with CPDF data
     available to all users, and

  -- document future CPDF computer system and software changes and
     independently verify that those changes are working as intended. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

OPM provided written comments on a draft of this report (see app. 
VII) that are discussed at the end of chapters 2, 3, and 4. 

The OPM Director did not specifically refer to GAO's first two
recommendations--that she make the results of OPM's historical
measurements of the CPDF's accuracy available to all users and that
she make the 28 caution statements associated with CPDF data
available to all users.  However, she said that OPM will make
available appropriate explanatory material to all CPDF users.  She
said that she agreed with GAO's third recommendation--that OPM
document future CPDF computer system and software changes and
independently verify that those changes are working as intended.  She
also said that OPM will fully document all future computer system and
software changes and perform independent verification that the
changes function as intended. 


INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1

According to the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Guide to the
Central Personnel Data File, the CPDF is the federal government's
central personnel automated database that contains statistically
accurate demographic information on about 1.9 million federal
civilian employees.  The CPDF's primary objective is to provide a
readily accessible database for meeting the workforce information
needs of the White House, Congress, OPM, other federal agencies,
researchers, and the public.  A second objective is to relieve
agencies that submit personnel data to the CPDF of the need to
provide separate data or reports to meet a variety of reporting
requirements.  Data that agencies submit to the CPDF represent their
official workforce statistics. 

OPM's Office of Workforce Information (OWI) is responsible for
accepting and entering data into the CPDF and processes the data
using the Central Personnel Data System.  OWI also prepares reports
using CPDF data and distributes CPDF data to both OPM and non-OPM
users. 

In order to safeguard the privacy of federal civilian employees as
required under the Privacy Act of 1974, OPM must protect CPDF data
from unauthorized disclosure.  For example, at OPM access to
agencies' CPDF submissions is limited to OPM staff responsible for
determining if the data meet OPM's guidelines for acceptance into the
CPDF.  When disseminating CPDF data, OPM is to protect the privacy of
individuals.  For example, OPM is not to provide employees' names,
Social Security numbers, or birth dates to requesters or to make this
information available to the federal agencies\3 that are allowed to
access the CPDF via OPM's electronic User Simple and Efficient
Retrieval (USER) system to retrieve personnel data to do their
work.\4


--------------------
\3 According to OPM, GAO, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Department of
Agriculture, Department of Labor, Environmental Protection Agency,
National Guard, National Security Agency, Congressional Budget
Office, and the Office of Management and Budget were trained and
given access to this system by them. 

\4 OPM will provide such data to us, the Merit Systems Protection
Board, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to survey
federal employees about their opinions and experiences, but those
agencies are to have their own procedures for protecting the privacy
of survey respondents. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

The CPDF contains personnel data for most of the executive branch
departments and agencies as well as a few agencies in the legislative
branch.  Included are all of the cabinet departments (e.g., State,
Treasury, Justice); the independent agencies (e.g., Environmental
Protection Agency, Small Business Administration, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration); commissions, councils, and
boards (e.g., National Council on the Handicapped); and selected
legislative branch agencies, such as the Government Printing Office. 

The CPDF does not contain employee data for the Central Intelligence
Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, National Security Agency, Office of the Vice
President, Postal Rate Commission, Tennessee Valley Authority, U.S. 
Postal Service, or the White House Office.  The CPDF also excludes
from coverage non-U.S.  citizens working for federal agencies in
foreign countries; most nonappropriated fund personnel;\5
commissioned officers in the Department of Commerce, Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Environmental Protection
Agency; and all employees of the judicial branch.\6


--------------------
\5 Nonappropriated fund personnel are employees of activities that do
not receive congressional appropriations, e.g., the Department of
Defense's Commissary Service. 

\6 OPM has proposed that Congress grant it authority over any
executive agency subject to the merit system principles set forth in
5 U.S.C.  2301, or their equivalent. 


      THE HISTORY OF THE CPDF
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1.1

The Civil Service Commission, OPM's predecessor, decided it would
install a type of central personnel database--the CPDF--1972 to
provide a source that was capable of (1) satisfying minimum essential
statistical data needs for central management agencies and the
public; (2) meeting reporting requirements, such as periodic surveys
of affirmative employment programs and semiannual turnover reports;
and (3) alleviating the need for agencies to individually report
similar information separately to requesters.  The CPDF also expanded
and replaced the Federal Personnel Statistics Program Sample File,
which was established in 1962.  The File contained a continuous work
history on each federal employee whose Social Security account number
ended in the digit "5," a population that constituted a 10-percent
sample of the federal workforce. 


      HOW THE CPDF OPERATES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1.2

OPM builds six files from agency-submitted data.  These are the
longitudinal history (a record of personnel actions arranged by date
within Social Security number), organizational component (a listing
of the codes used by each agency to identify its various work units,
e.g., regions, divisions, branches); personnel office identifier
(contains the mailing address and phone number for personnel offices
that report to the CPDF); name (a cross-reference listing of names,
Social Security numbers, accession dates, and applicable separation
dates of employees reported to the CPDF); status; and dynamics files. 
Of the six, this report focuses on the status and dynamics files. 
They are the source of the demographic information used by OWI to
write reports and to respond to data requests by users of CPDF data. 

The status file consists of data elements describing each employee as
of the date of the file.  Agencies are required to submit these files
on a quarterly basis, with the submissions due at OPM no later than
the 22nd of the month following the end of the quarter (e.g., input
for the quarter ending December 31 must be submitted by January 22). 
All of the employees covered by the CPDF are to be included in each
file.  The data elements include information on the type of work; the
employee's pay; and personal information, such as gender and birth
date. 

The dynamics file consists of data elements describing each personnel
action taken by an agency during the period covered by the file. 
Personnel actions are the official records of employees' careers,
such as hires, promotions, reassignments, pay changes, resignations,
and retirements.  The file includes information about the action
taken, the agency/subelement, the position, pay, and the individual
employee.  The normal reporting period is a calendar month but may
end as of the last full biweekly pay period of the month. 
Submissions are due at OPM as soon as possible following completion
of agency processing but no later than 22 days following the end of a
monthly reporting period.  As of February 1998, the CPDF consisted of
95 separate data elements.  Of this number, 68 are to be reported by
agencies in their monthly and quarterly dynamics and status file
submissions. 

OPM relies on agencies to ensure that the data they submit are
timely, accurate, complete, and edited in accordance with OPM
standards.  OPM provides agencies with guidance, the Guide to the
CPDF, which says agencies are to test the data they provide to the
CPDF to ensure that the data are accurate and complete.  To help
agencies ensure the quality of their data, OPM provides them with the
CPDF Edit Manual, which prescribes the data values to which agencies'
data are to conform before they are submitted.  To test the values of
their data, agencies are to use OPM's CPDF edits.  These edits are
computer instructions that are to check the validity of individual
data elements as well as the proper relationship of values among
associated data elements.  For example, the edit for the sex data
element checks that the character used to define the data element is
either "M" for male or "F" for female; the edit identifies other
characters as errors.  OPM expects agencies to incorporate these CPDF
edits into their internal personnel data systems.  These edits
constitute the minimum level of quality control OPM expects the
agencies to employ.  Agencies have the option of incorporating
additional quality controls, such as testing a sample of the data for
accuracy before submitting it, in addition to applying the CPDF
edits. 

The CPDF edits cannot detect all types of errors.  For example, an
edit for the sex data element would not be able to detect if the
character "M" was incorrectly used to identify a female employee. 
According to OWI officials, although they provide agencies with the
edits, errors still occur in submissions, which OPM strives to
identify through OWI's quality review process.  The officials also
said that errors in pay-related data elements often occur at the
beginning of the year because agencies make their
beginning-of-the-year submissions before they install edits that
reflect annual cost-of-living pay increases.  The Guide to the CPDF
also informs agencies about what data elements should be included in
their CPDF data submissions and the frequency and timing of the
submissions.  As mentioned earlier, frequency and timing requirements
differ for the status and dynamics data files. 

After agencies submit the personnel data, OPM puts the submissions
through an acceptance process before the data can be entered into the
CPDF.  This process includes putting the data through the same CPDF
edits the agencies were to use before submitting the data as well as
other analyses.  OWI manages the process.  Its staff are to provide
agencies with feedback on their submissions, requesting, as needed,
corrections to submissions that fail edit checks or other analyses
and preventing data that are not within the acceptable range of data
values from being entered into the CPDF.  OWI is to make the final
decision about what data are entered into the CPDF.  At the time of
our review, the Central Personnel Data System was operated by OPM's
Office of Information Technology (OIT) for OWI.  The CPDF Quality
Control team that monitored agencies' data submissions was part of
OIT.  However, operation of the System was transferred to OPM's
Retirement and Insurance Service in 1997, and the quality assurance
staff were reassigned to OWI. 


      OPM HAS AUTHORITY TO REQUEST
      AGENCY DATA FOR THE CPDF
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1.3

OPM may require agencies under 5 C.F.R.  section 7.2 to report "in
such manner and at such times as OPM may prescribe, such personnel
information as it may request." On the basis of this authority, OPM
is able to direct agencies to submit selected personnel data to the
CPDF.  However, although the OPM Director can request data, she
cannot ensure that agencies provide accurate information in a timely
manner.  The responsibility for providing timely, accurate
information remains with the head of the agency providing the
information.  OPM officials rely on federal agencies to voluntarily
comply with CPDF guidelines and correct problem submissions. 


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

For this review, we had three objectives: 

(1) determine the extent to which selected CPDF data elements are
accurate, including the data elements used by OPM's Office of the
Actuaries for estimating the government's liability for future
payments of federal retirement programs;

(2) determine whether selected users of CPDF data believed CPDF
products met their needs, including whether the products were
current, accurate, and complete and whether the cautions OPM provided
to them on the limitations associated with using the data were
sufficient for them to present the CPDF data correctly; and

(3) determine whether OPM has documented changes to the System and
verified the System's acceptance of those changes, as recommended in
applicable federal guidance, and whether the System would implement
CPDF edits as intended. 


      OBJECTIVE 1
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.1

To determine the extent to which selected CPDF data elements are
accurate, including the data elements used by OPM's Office of the
Actuaries for estimating the government's liability for future
payments of federal retirement programs, we (1) designed and sent
questionnaires to a random sample of federal employees to have them
verify some of their CPDF data and (2) compared CPDF data with
information in randomly selected official personnel folders and in
other agency records at selected personnel offices.  Table 1.1
presents a list of the CPDF data elements we used in our employee
questionnaire and comparison of CPDF data with information in
official personnel folders. 



                                    Table 1.1
                     
                      List of Data Elements Used in Employee
                       Questionnaire and Comparison of CPDF
                       Data With Official Personnel Folders

                                  Location in CPDF          GAO's approaches
                              -------------------------  -----------------------
                                             Dynamics    Questionnair  Compariso
Data element                  Status file      file           e            n
----------------------------  -----------  ------------  ------------  ---------
Adjusted basic pay                                                      
Agency/Subelement                                                       
Annuitant indicator                                                      
Birth date                                                              
Current appointment                                                      
 authority
Duty station                                                            
Education level                                                         
Effective date of action                                                  
Handicap                                                                
Legal authority code                                                      
Employee name\a                                                           
Nature of action code                                                     
Occupation                                                              
Pay plan/grade\b                                                        
Pay rate determinant                                                     
Personnel office identifier                                              
Position occupied                                                        
Race or national origin                                                 
Rating of record                                                        
Retirement plan                                                         
Service computation date                                                
Sex                                                                     
Social Security number                                                  
Tenure                                                                   
Veterans preference                                                     
Veterans status                                                         
Work schedule                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a To protect the confidentiality of employee records, OPM stores
employee names separately from the major CPDF databases in the CPDF
name file. 

\b Pay plan and grade are separate data elements.  We combined these
two data elements into one on the questionnaire to make it easier for
employees to respond. 

Source:  OPM's Office of Workforce Information and GAO. 

We used two approaches, i.e., a questionnaire (see app.  V) and a
comparison of data in official personnel folders and agency records
to CPDF data, to measure the accuracy of CPDF data.  We sent the
questionnaire to a sample of employees, because OPM studies show that
official personnel files or agency records may be in error.  We
compared the results of both approaches to develop our findings. 

We also reviewed past OPM accuracy measurements, examined CPDF data
for missing and unusable information, and interviewed an official of
OPM's Office of the Actuaries to discuss the accuracy of the data
elements the Office uses for estimating the government's liability
for future retirement payments.  These steps are more fully described
in the following sections. 


         QUESTIONNAIRE
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 1:2.1.1

As part of our evaluation of the accuracy of CPDF data, we selected a
stratified random sample of 565 federal employees and attempted to
send each a questionnaire containing 20 data elements about
themselves obtained from the CPDF (see app.  V for a copy of our
questionnaire).  The data elements that we included in the
questionnaire were among those we most frequently use to do our work,
those OPM analysts use most frequently in preparing CPDF reports, and
those used by OPM's Office of the Actuaries to estimate the
government's liability for future payments of federal retirement
programs.  We selected those data elements that we believed employees
would be able to verify.  We included in each individual's
questionnaire data elements from the September 1996 CPDF status file
about that individual.  The elements consisted of (1) Social Security
number, (2) employing agency/subelement, (3) adjusted basic pay
(including locality pay), (4) month and year of birth, (5) duty
station, (6) pay plan, (7) grade, (8) handicap, (9) occupation, (10)
race or national origin, (11) service computation date, (12) sex,
(13) veterans preference, (14) veterans status, (15) work schedule,
(16) education level, (17) rating of record, (18) retirement plan,
(19) annuitant indicator, and (20) employee name.  We asked the
respondents to verify the accuracy of each data element, indicating
whether it was correct or incorrect as of September 30, 1996.  When a
respondent indicated that a data element was incorrect, we asked the
respondent to enter the correct information. 

We pretested the questionnaire to assure ourselves that respondents
could interpret the questions correctly and could provide the
information requested.  We modified question wording and
questionnaire format on the basis of what we learned from five
pretests. 

The random sample of 565 was drawn from 7 strata to represent a study
population of 1,905,787 non-Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
federal employees whose names were contained in the CPDF database as
of September 30, 1996.\7 Random samples of 30 selections each were
drawn from 6 smaller strata, each of which comprised a single
personnel office.  These six personnel offices were among the eight
largest personnel offices in the federal government.\8 These offices
were the Social Security Administration (SSA), Baltimore, MD;
Department of the Army, Fort Benning, GA; U.S.  Customs Service,
Washington, D.C.; National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD;
Department of State, Washington, D.C.; and Department of the Navy,
Pensacola, FL.  We selected these personnel offices because of their
size and because our work at the offices could then be representative
of a relatively large portion of records contained in the CPDF.  The
6 personnel offices were among 1,425 in the government and served
over 8 percent of the employees whose data were contained in the CPDF
as of September 30, 1996.  We used the selections from these six
personnel offices for both the employee questionnaire and a review of
official personnel folders.  The remainder of the sample--385
selections--was randomly drawn to represent the remaining stratum of
1,746,592 employees from all other personnel offices.  The total
sample of 565 was designed to ensure that it approximately mirrored
the population distribution with respect to type of appointment
(career or noncareer), work schedule (full-time or non-full-time),
type of service (competitive or excepted), and location (stationed in
or outside the United States). 

Because the CPDF does not contain mailing addresses for employees, we
mailed most of our questionnaires to personnel officers whom were
identified in the CPDF as serving the employees in our sample.  In
all, 562 of the 565 sampled employees were covered by 280 personnel
officers.  We were not able to identify the personnel officers for
three of the sampled employees.  We asked the personnel officers to
whom we sent questionnaires to forward them to the sampled employees. 
In addition, we asked them to provide us with the direct mailing
address of each sampled employee so that we would be able to mail
follow-up questionnaires directly to sampled employees who did not
return a questionnaire to us within 45 days.  We also asked the
personnel officers to furnish us with reasons why any of the
questionnaires could not be forwarded to the sampled employees. 
After an initial and a follow-up mailing, we received 407 usable
questionnaires out of 565, for a 72 percent response rate.  Table 1.2
presents a breakdown of the number of sampled federal employees
responding to our questionnaire as well as the various reasons why
some sampled employees did not respond. 



                               Table 1.2
                
                     Breakdown of Sampled Employees
                  Responding and Not Responding to the
                             Questionnaire

Employees in initial sample                                        565
--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Respondents                                                      407\a
Nonrespondents
Refusal (questionnaire not returned or returned blank)              81
Employee resigned                                                   16
Employee retired                                                    15
Employee deceased                                                    3
Employee transferred from agency                                     9
Employee on extended leave                                           4
Personnel officer could not locate employee                         13
GAO could not locate personnel officer                               3
POI\b address unknown-returned by Postal Service                     3
Questionnaires returned after the closeout date                      3
Other miscellaneous reasons                                          8
======================================================================
Total nonrespondents                                               158
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The response rate was 72 percent. 

\b Personnel Office Identifier. 

Source:  GAO questionnaire. 

We edited the questionnaires received from respondents to identify
data elements marked as incorrect.  In cases where a respondent
indicated that a data element from the CPDF was incorrect, the editor
then made an effort to determine if the correction entered onto the
questionnaire by the respondent was logical.  For example, a number
of respondents indicated that the annual pay amount shown on the
questionnaire was incorrect.  However, in researching the "correct"
amount entered by the respondent, it was determined that the amount
entered was his or her current annual pay, not the annual pay as of
September 30, 1996, as indicated in the question.  In these cases,
the response was changed from incorrect to correct by the editor. 

The 407 returned questionnaires from the 7 strata were weighted to
represent the population of 1,905,787 federal employees for all
results presented in this report.  Sampling errors have been
calculated to take into account the different weights assigned to
each stratum.  Unless otherwise noted, the 95 percent confidence
intervals around all reported results are plus or minus 5 percentage
points or less. 

In addition to sampling errors, the practical difficulties of
administering any questionnaire may introduce other types of errors,
commonly referred to as nonsampling errors.  For example, differences
in how a particular question is interpreted by the questionnaire
respondents could introduce unwanted variability in the
questionnaire's results.  We took steps in the development of the
questionnaire, the data collection, and the data editing and analysis
to minimize nonsampling errors. 


--------------------
\7 Although the FBI submits data to the CPDF, it does not provide
certain information, such as duty station, that we wanted to review. 

\8 Although the Department of Veterans Affairs is the executive
branch agency with the most employees after DOD, its personnel
offices are not among the largest.  We also did not include the
Postal Service in our study because it does not submit data to the
CPDF. 


         COMPARISON OF OFFICIAL
         PERSONNEL FOLDERS AND
         AGENCY RECORDS WITH CPDF
         DATA
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 1:2.1.2

We also compared data contained in official personnel folders and
other agency records with data in the CPDF for the same period at the
six selected personnel offices.  For each of the 6 personnel offices
we selected, we chose 30 employees at random from the September 1996
CPDF status file.  The employees were those who were reported by the
CPDF as being served by the six respective personnel offices.  At
each of the 6 personnel offices, we asked for official personnel
folders for the 30 employees.  We also asked for information from the
personnel offices' automated files on ratings, handicap, and race or
national origin because such information is not necessarily contained
in personnel folders.  We then selected 20 employees at random from
those whose official personnel folders were available.  We
over-sampled by 10 employees in our initial sample for each personnel
office because we anticipated that some folders would be unavailable
because of employee departures or other reasons.  At SSA, we reviewed
official personnel folders and other agency records for only 13
employees because the official personnel folders for 17 of the 30
employees we chose at random were located in offices throughout the
country and not in a central location as we initially expected.  In
total, we reviewed folders and other agency records for 113 employees
for the 6 personnel offices. 

For each of the 113 employees in our sample, we obtained information
from the September 1996 CPDF status and dynamics files.  The
information we obtained consisted of the 20 data elements we used for
our questionnaire and the data elements that we most frequently use
to do our work, including key status and dynamics data elements.  The
eight data elements that were in addition to the data elements used
for the questionnaire were current appointment authority, effective
date of action, legal authority code, nature of action code, pay rate
determinant, personnel office identifier, position occupied, and
tenure.  We reviewed a total of 28 data elements:  23 data elements
common to both the status and dynamics files, 1 element found only in
the status file, 3 elements found only in the dynamics file, and
employee name (see table 1.1 for the CPDF data elements we reviewed
and their file locations). 

For each employee, we compared the CPDF data with relevant documents,
such as Standard Forms 50 (notification of personnel action) and
employment applications, in official personnel folders.  We also
compared the CPDF data with automated files on those employees'
ratings, handicap, and race or national origin.  We discussed any
mismatches we found with personnel in an attempt to determine how
differences can occur between the CPDF and agency documentation. 


         PAST OPM ACCURACY
         MEASUREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 1:2.1.3

OPM conducts periodic measurements of CPDF accuracy by comparing data
in the official personnel folders of separated employees with data in
the CPDF.  We reviewed the six measurements of CPDF accuracy OPM did
from April 1984 to July 1996 and compared the results of our
evaluation of CPDF accuracy with the results of OPM's last two
measurements, which were issued in January 1992 and July 1996. 


         DATA USED BY OPM'S OFFICE
         OF THE ACTUARIES
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 1:2.1.4

To determine if the CPDF data used by OPM's Office of the Actuaries
to estimate the government's liability for future retirement payments
are sufficiently accurate for use by the Office, we first met with
the actuary responsible for calculating this liability to determine
the CPDF data elements used in the estimate.  After our analysis of
the employee questionnaire and our comparison of personnel folders
and other agency records to CPDF data, we again interviewed the
actuary to discuss the results of our two approaches and the impact
of errors on the estimate. 


         LIMITATIONS
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 1:2.1.5

The results of our employee questionnaire are generalizable to the
universe of 1,905,787 employees included in the CPDF's September 1996
status file.  Table 2.1 shows the generalized results as a percentage
of records in the September 1996 status file.  The results of our
comparison of employees' official personnel folders and other agency
records to CPDF data are not generalizable to the CPDF as a whole,
although they may be indicative of the personnel offices at which we
performed our work. 

The CPDF data elements measured for accuracy generally were among
those identified by OPM as key to the accuracy of its recurring
reports.  We cannot determine from the work we did the accuracy of
data elements we did not review.  We did not independently verify
educational levels reported by employees or any of the responses of
employees. 

Our accuracy findings are for CPDF data in the September 30, 1996,
status file and the fiscal year 1996 dynamics file.  The accuracy
might differ for previous and future CPDF files, especially when
agency procedures or information processing technology change. 

Our accuracy measurement was not designed to evaluate the reliability
of CPDF data from individual agencies or specific subsets of
employees, such as those on leave without pay.  OPM reports on the
percentage of data elements in agency submissions that do not pass
standard CPDF edits show considerable variation across agencies. 


      OBJECTIVE 2
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.2

To determine whether selected users of CPDF data believed CPDF
products met their needs including whether the products were current,
accurate, and complete and whether the cautions OPM provided to them
on the limitations associated with using the data were sufficient for
them to present the CPDF data correctly, we designed, with advice
from OPM, a CPDF customer questionnaire (see app.  VI for a copy of
our questionnaire).  We mailed the questionnaires to 247 individuals
identified by OPM Office of Workforce Information as representing all
the requesters of CPDF products in fiscal year 1996 who obtained data
directly from OPM. 

We mailed the customer questionnaires in May of 1997 to the return
addresses on letters in OWI's fiscal year 1996 correspondence files
that had requested CPDF products and to recipients of recurring
CPDF-based reports in 1996.  We followed up our initial mailing with
a second one in June and a third one in July.  We did not include in
our analysis any questionnaires received after August 6, 1997. 

After August 6, 1997, we made follow-up phone calls to all
nonrespondents and determined that 40 of the original 247 individuals
we sent the questionnaire to were either not CPDF users or had left
their organizations.  Of the remaining 207 individuals who were CPDF
users, 140 (or 68 percent) responded to the mail questionnaire, and
an additional 21 responded to an abbreviated version of the mail
questionnaire we used in follow-up phone calls to nonrespondents. 
The combined response rate for the mail-out questionnaire and the
phone follow-up was 78 percent. 

After we received the questionnaires from the respondents, we edited
them for completeness and consistency.  All of the data from the
questionnaires were double-keyed and verified during data entry.  In
addition, a random sample of these data was verified back to the
source questionnaires. 


         LIMITATIONS
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 1:2.2.1

The results of our user questionnaire are not generalizable to the
universe of users of CPDF data and products for 1996 because we could
not define the universe of users necessary to draw a representative
sample.  The distribution of CPDF products, such as recurring
reports, is not controlled.  These products are available through
various outlets, such as libraries, that do not track customers. 
Therefore, we relied on OWI to identify those customers who
corresponded with it in 1996 to request CPDF data and sent our
questionnaire to this defined but nonrepresentative subset of the
1996 universe of CPDF users. 


      OBJECTIVE 3
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.3

To determine whether OPM has documented changes to the Central
Personnel Data System and verified the System's acceptance of those
changes, as recommended in applicable federal guidance, and whether
the System would implement CPDF edits as intended, we first reviewed
federal guidance on managing automated information systems.  To
determine the extent to which OPM's OIT followed the guidance in
managing the development of the System, we conducted interviews at
OIT, which was responsible for operating the System, and OWI, which
is the System's principal customer, about their basis for determining
the System's reliability.  From these officials, we requested
available documentation relating to modifications and upgrades of
software used by the System to process CPDF data and documentation
relating to verification that these modifications and upgrades worked
as planned.  We also reviewed available documentation on OPM's
current Information Technology Strategy to determine whether it
includes procedures for managing the System in the future.  To
determine whether the System would implement CPDF edits OPM uses to
screen the 68 data elements reported by agencies to OPM as intended,
we reviewed 18 of the 63 validity\9 and all 700 of the
call-relational\10 edits the System uses to screen agencies' data
submissions. 


--------------------
\9 Validity edits check data against a defined range of acceptable
values to identify data that fall outside the range. 

\10 The call-relational edits are a series of subroutines or programs
within the "Dynamics Main Edit Module" and the "Status Main Edit
Module" that control the editing of an agency's dynamics and status
submission files.  These edits do not make corrections to any of the
data elements.  They produce reports that show which fields or data
elements are incorrect or failed validity checks. 


         LIMITATIONS
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 1:2.3.1

We judgmentally selected only the 18 validity edits OWI uses to
screen the data elements it considers critical; therefore, the
findings of our review of these 18 edits cannot be generalized to all
63 validity edits.  Because we did not actually put test data through
the system or otherwise test the reliability of the System's hardware
and software under operating conditions, we cannot verify the
reliability of the System.  We did not assess the likelihood that the
CPDF would be Year 2000 compliant by December 31, 1999. 

We conducted our work between November 1996 and June 1998, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
The employee CPDF data verification questionnaire and CPDF customer
survey were administered between May 1997 and September 1997; thus,
the data are as of those dates. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Director of
OPM.  OPM provided written comments on a draft of this report (see
app.  VII) that are discussed at the end of chapters 2, 3, and 4. 


CPDF DATA REVIEWED APPEAR TO BE
MOSTLY ACCURATE IN THE AGGREGATE
============================================================ Chapter 2

The accuracy of the data the CPDF contains depends on the accuracy of
the data that agencies submit.  Errors in those data can occur at
various stages of the personnel process, such as when agency
personnel clerks enter data for newly hired employees or when they
code information on personnel actions (e.g., performance appraisals). 
OPM does not have an official accuracy standard for agencies'
submissions.  On a periodic basis, however, OPM draws a
governmentwide sample of CPDF records and measures CPDF data accuracy
by comparing selected data in former federal employees' official
personnel folders to data in the CPDF for the same period.  OPM
generally makes the results of its measurements of CPDF accuracy
available to OPM users of CPDF data but not to non-OPM users.  In
spite of the important uses of CPDF data, no independent evaluation
of the accuracy of the data has been done.  Our work showed that most
of the CPDF data elements we reviewed were 99 percent or more
accurate on a governmentwide basis.  The rating of record and
education level data elements had the highest error rates, at about 5
and 16 percent for rating of record, and 23 and 27 percent for
education level based on our questionnaire and comparison,
respectively.  Our overall findings are broadly similar to what OPM
found when it measured historical accuracy\11 in 1996 by comparing
1994 data in former employees' official personnel folders with the
data in the CPDF.  We shared the results of our work with the actuary
responsible for calculating the federal government's liability for
future retirement payments to retired federal employees and their
survivors, and he said that the CPDF data elements were sufficiently
accurate for making this estimate. 


--------------------
\11 The CPDF/OPF Accuracy Survey, which has been done every few years
(the most recent is for fiscal year 1994 CPDF data and was issued in
July 1996), identifies historical error rates. 


   OPM MEASURES HISTORICAL
   ACCURACY OF CPDF, BUT DOES NOT
   REPORT RESULTS OF ITS ACCURACY
   MEASUREMENTS TO NON-OPM USERS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1

OPM periodically measures the accuracy of selected data that are in
the CPDF.  As we said earlier, OPM relies on agency data passing CPDF
edits to eliminate errors that would result in inaccurate data being
entered in the CPDF.  For example, the edits are to identify a salary
amount that is too high for a particular pay plan or grade.  However,
the edits are not able to identify an error in salary that is within
the range of that pay plan or grade.  Thus, inaccurate data can get
into the CPDF. 

To measure the historical accuracy of CPDF data, OPM periodically
compares certain data found in a sample of former federal employees'
official personnel folders to data in the CPDF for the same period. 
From April 1984 to July 1996, OPM conducted six such measurements. 
OPM analysts used a sample of former employees and compared certain
data elements in their official personnel folders to information in
the CPDF's status and dynamics files.  For example, the latest
measurement, which was released in 1996 for fiscal year 1994 data,
used a sample of 135 former employees and compared 35 status file and
40 dynamics file data elements to information in the official
personnel folders.  An error was defined as a value found in the CPDF
that was not the same as that found in the employee's official
personnel folder.\12 OPM officials told us--and OPM's accuracy
surveys state--that the surveys were designed to measure the accuracy
of governmentwide data only and not the accuracy of data from
individual agencies.  OPM generally makes the results of its
measurements of CPDF data accuracy available to CPDF data users
within OPM but not to non-OPM users. 

In five of the historical accuracy measurements, OPM found that most
CPDF data were generally accurate, and in most cases the selected
data elements matched the corresponding official personnel folder
entries 99 percent or more of the time.  However, OPM did not make
that statement for its December 1990 measurement of 1988 CPDF data. 
Instead, it advised OPM users of CPDF data to review the results of
the accuracy measurement and determine for themselves whether the
data were sufficiently accurate for their use.  OPM officials said
that OPM does not routinely inform non-OPM users of the results of
its measurements of historical accuracy. 

OPM has not promulgated a standard for the accuracy of CPDF data.  To
our knowledge, no federal agency has promulgated accuracy standards
that are generally applicable to federal databases.  In general, the
level of accuracy for data must be balanced against what the data are
to be used for and the cost of obtaining a greater level of accuracy. 


--------------------
\12 OPM does not count asterisks or missing data as errors.  OPM
analysts insert asterisks into the CPDF when submitted data elements
do not pass edit checks and agencies do not provide corrected data. 


   MOST CPDF DATA TESTED WERE
   ACCURATE AND AGREED WITH
   AGENCIES' PERSONNEL RECORDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2

To measure the accuracy of the CPDF, we (1) sent a questionnaire to a
random sample of federal employees to gather information about the
accuracy of 20 of the 68 CPDF data elements reported by agencies and
(2) compared data for 28 data elements in the CPDF with the data
contained in the official personnel folders and other agency records
for 113 randomly selected employees at 6 of the largest federal
personnel offices.\13 We found that most CPDF data elements we tested
were accurate and agreed with information in employees' official
personnel folders and other agency personnel records.  Although our
methodology differed from the one OPM uses in its measurements of
historical accuracy, the results of our review were broadly similar
to OPM's results. 


--------------------
\13 These offices were SSA, Baltimore, MD; Department of the Army,
Fort Benning, GA; U.S.  Customs Service, Washington, D.C.; National
Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Department of State, Washington,
D.C.; and Department of the Navy, Pensacola, FL.  Although the
Department of Veterans' Affairs is the executive branch agency with
the most employees after DoD, its personnel offices are not among the
largest.  And, we did not include the Post Office in our study
because it does not submit data to the CPDF. 


      QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS AND
      COMPARISON OF SELECTED CPDF
      DATA TO EMPLOYEE RECORDS
      SHOWED MOST DATA WERE
      ACCURATE AND AGREED WITH
      AGENCIES' PERSONNEL RECORDS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.1

To determine the accuracy of 20 selected CPDF data elements, we sent
a questionnaire to a random sample of federal employees that was
representative of federal employees governmentwide (see ch.  1 for a
description of our sampling methodology).  We asked them to review
information about themselves that we obtained from the September 1996
CPDF.  The data elements we asked about were those about which we
believed employees would be most familiar, including employee
name,\14 birth date, and Social Security number.  The results of our
questionnaire showed that 14 of the 20 data elements, or 70 percent,
matched data in the CPDF in 99 percent or more of the cases (see
table 2.1).  There were no inaccuracies for seven of these data
elements and the other seven data elements had error rates of less
than 1 percent.  The remaining six data elements had error rates
greater than 1 percent (see table 2.1). 

The two most error-prone data elements were education level and
rating of record.  Education level had a 26.7 percent error rate and
rating of record had a 4.7 percent error rate.  The education level
data element is intended to reflect the highest education level that
a federal employee achieved.  The rating of record data element
indicates an employee's most recent rating or performance appraisal. 
The results of our employee questionnaire are generalizable to the
universe of 1,905,787 employees included in the CPDF's September 1996
status file.  Table 2.1 shows the generalized results as a percentage
of records in the September 1996 status file. 



                               Table 2.1
                
                Questionnaire Respondents Reported Most
                 Data Elements Were Generally Accurate

                                                        95% Confidence
                                                         interval for
                                                           federal
                                                           civilian
                                                          workforce
                                                        --------------
                                            Percentage   Lower   Upper
                                          of errors in  bounda  bounda
Data element                                our sample      ry      ry
----------------------------------------  ------------  ------  ------
Annuitant indicator                               0.0%   0.00%    0.9%
Birth date (month and year)                        0.0    0.00     0.9
Agency/Subelement                                  0.0    0.00     0.9
Occupation                                         0.0    0.00     0.9
Retirement plan                                    0.0    0.00     0.9
Social Security number                             0.0    0.00     0.9
Work schedule                                      0.0    0.00     0.9
Sex                                                0.1    0.00    1.34
Duty station                                       0.3    0.01    1.95
Service computation date (month and                0.4    0.01    1.95
 year)
Pay plan/grade                                     0.7    0.09    2.48
Veterans preference                                0.7    0.09    2.48
Employee name \a                                   0.9    0.09    2.48
Adjusted basic pay                                 1.2    0.24    2.98
Race or national origin                            2.0    0.64    3.91
Veterans status                                    2.2    0.88    4.36
Handicap                                           2.7    2.16    6.51
Rating of record                                   4.7    2.37    6.77
Education level                                   26.7   21.50   31.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1:  The returned questionnaires were weighted to represent the
population of 1,905,787 federal employees for the results presented
in this table.  The percentages are generalizable to the universe of
federal employees in the CPDF as of September 1996, excluding
employees of the FBI. 

Note 2:  Because the questionnaire results come from a sample of
employees, all questionnaire results are subject to sampling error. 
We are 95-percent confident that the percentage of error for the
federal civilian workforce as a whole falls between the lower and
upper boundaries listed for each data element.  The percentages of
errors for the questionnaire results in our sample are reported in
the table. 

Note 3:  Pay plan and grade data elements are combined; therefore,
although we checked the accuracy of 20 data elements, the table shows
19 data elements. 

\a To protect the confidentiality of employee records, OPM stores
employees' names separately from the major CPDF databases. 

Source:  GAO questionnaire. 

We also compared data in employees' personnel folders or other agency
records with data in the CPDF for 113 randomly selected employees at
6 of the largest federal personnel offices (see the objectives,
scope, and methodology section in ch.  1 for a discussion of our
selection process).  For this comparison, we reviewed a total of 28
data elements:  23 data elements common to both the status and
dynamics files, 1 element found only in the status file, 3 elements
found only in the dynamics file, and the employee name data element
found in the CPDF name file.  (See table 1.1 in the Objectives,
Scope, and Methodology section in ch.  1 for the CPDF data elements
we reviewed and their file locations). 

In our review of official personnel folders and agency records, we
found no inconsistencies among the 23 data elements we included in
our comparison that were common to both the status and dynamics
files.  For example, if the status file data element showed an
erroneous education level for a given employee, the dynamics file
element showed the same erroneous code.  Our review of official
personnel folders showed that personnel actions reflected in the CPDF
dynamics file appeared to be generally complete.\15 There were no
inaccuracies for 12 of the data elements.  For another five data
elements, our comparison showed error rates of less than 1 percent. 
The remaining nine data elements had error rates greater than 1
percent.  For the legal authority code data element, we could not
determine the error rate because some employees had no transactions
for fiscal year 1996.  Table 2.2 shows the results of our comparison. 



                               Table 2.2
                
                   Number of Differences Between 113
                 Employees' Official Personnel Folders
                    and Agency Records and the CPDF

                                                                Percen
                                                        Number    tage
                                                            of      of
                                                        differ  errors
Data element                                             ences      \a
------------------------------------------------------  ------  ------
Annuitant indicator                                          0    0.0%
Effective date of action                                     0     0.0
Duty station                                                 0     0.0
Agency/Subelement                                            0     0.0
Handicap                                                     0     0.0
Nature of action code                                        0     0.0
Position occupied                                            0     0.0
Race or national origin                                      0     0.0
Retirement plan                                              0     0.0
Social Security number                                       0     0.0
Tenure                                                       0     0.0
Work schedule                                                0     0.0
Birth date (month and year)                                  1     0.9
Occupation                                                   1     0.9
Personnel office identifier                                  1     0.9
Service computation date (month and year)                    1     0.9
Sex                                                          1     0.9
Employee name\b                                              2     1.8
Pay rate determinant                                         2     1.8
Legal authority code                                         3      \c
Pay plan/grade                                               3     2.7
Veterans preference                                          4     3.5
Adjusted basic pay                                           7     6.2
Veterans status                                              8     7.1
Current appointment authority                               11     9.7
Rating of record                                            18    15.9
Education                                                   26    23.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1:  The percentages reported in this table are based on a random
sample of official personnel folders at six of the largest personnel
offices in the federal government and cannot be generalized
governmentwide. 

Note 2:  Pay plan and grade data elements are combined; therefore,
the table shows 27 data elements rather than 28. 

\a The percentage of errors is based on the number of folders
reviewed rather than on the number of personnel transactions
documented in the folders. 

\b To protect the confidentiality of employee records, OPM stores
employee name separately from the major CPDF databases.  In the two
cases where the name was incorrect, the employees' names had changed
due to a change in their marital status. 

\c For this data element, we could not determine the percentage of
errors using the universe of 113 employees because some employees had
no transactions for fiscal year 1996. 

Source:  GAO analysis of agency records and the CPDF. 

Concerning the most error-prone data elements, our review of
employees' official personnel folders and agency records showed
results similar to those of our questionnaire --education level and
rating of record were the most error-prone data elements.  (See app. 
III for a more detailed discussion of the data elements that
contained the highest rates of error.) However, the results of our
comparison between the data in the official personnel folders and the
CPDF differ somewhat from those of our questionnaire.  For example,
the results of the questionnaire showed education level to have a
26.7 percent error rate and rating of record to have a 4.7 percent
error rate.  The results of the comparison showed education level to
have a 23.0 percent error rate and rating of record to have a 15.9
percent error rate.  Although we did not try to determine the reason
for these differences, two reasons appear most likely.  First, the
results of the questionnaire are generalizable governmentwide,
although the results of the comparison are not because the sample of
the comparison is not generalizable.  Second, the information in the
employees' official personnel folders might not be current.  In
particular, employees may not have informed their personnel offices
of additional education completed, so this information may not be in
the official personnel folder.  Thus, the information in the official
personnel folder might match the CPDF, but neither would be current. 


--------------------
\14 OPM provided us with employee names for the purposes of this
review. 

\15 We found two instances of personnel actions in official personnel
folders not being recorded in the CPDF dynamics file.  These two
missing personnel actions are not reflected in the table. 


      THE RESULTS OF OUR REVIEW
      WERE BROADLY CONSISTENT WITH
      THOSE OF OPM'S HISTORICAL
      ACCURACY MEASUREMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.2

In its measurements of historical accuracy of CPDF data, OPM has
reported results broadly consistent with ours.  That is, OPM has
found that most data elements it reviewed were 99 percent or more
accurate but has found high error rates for rating of record and
education level.  Table 2.3 groups by percent of errors the error
rates identified by our two methods for measuring CPDF status and
dynamics file data accuracy and OPM's measurement of the historical
accuracy of fiscal year 1994 CPDF status file data.  The table shows
that between the two methods we used to measure CPDF data accuracy
(although variation existed in the accuracy of some data elements) at
least 63 percent of CPDF data elements were 99 percent or more
accurate. 



                                    Table 2.3
                     
                       Errors Identified by GAO's and OPM's
                        Measurements of CPDF Data Accuracy
                           Grouped by Percent of Errors

                            GAO approaches
              ------------------------------------------
                                                              OPM's accuracy
                                                          measurement for fiscal
                 Questionnaire           Comparison             year 1994
              --------------------  --------------------  ----------------------
                            Number                Number                  Number
                                of                    of                      of
                              data                  data                    data
Percentage                  elemen                elemen                  elemen
of errors     Percent           ts  Percent         ts\a  Percent             ts
------------  ------------  ------  ------------  ------  --------------  ------
0             35%                7  44%               12  44%                  8

/<1           35                 7  19                 5  28                   5

1 and above   30                 6  37                10  28                   5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  GAO's questionnaire and comparison approaches included status
and dynamics file data.  The OPM accuracy measurement for fiscal year
1994 results used in the table are for status file data only. 

\a Although we compared 28 data elements this table includes 27. 
These numbers do not include the legal authority code data element
because we were not able to calculate an error rate for it. 

Source:  GAO analysis of CPDF data. 

Although OPM's and our results were broadly consistent, there are
important differences between OPM's methodology and ours.  First, we
sent our questionnaire to a generalizable sample of current federal
employees and reviewed a random sample of official personnel files of
current federal employees.  In contrast, OPM reviewed centrally
located records of former employees.  Second, OPM's methodology in
comparing CPDF data with those in employees' official personnel
folders differed from ours.  We often relied on agency records (e.g.,
records maintained separately from official personnel folders for
race, national origin, and handicap) in cases where data were not in
official personnel folders, but OPM generally limited its review to
documents that were in personnel folders.  Third, the way we
determined errors differed in part from OPM's.  OPM did not determine
if the official personnel folder data element itself was correct, but
we did so by researching available agency personnel records. 


      THE ACCURACY OF CPDF DATA
      VARIED BY AGENCY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.3

Our review of employees' official personnel folders and other agency
records was intended to evaluate CPDF accuracy in general, not to
compare CPDF data accuracy among individual agencies.  Such a review
would have required a much larger sample to represent each agency. 
But during our review, we did find circumstances that demonstrated
how accuracy varied by agency and why.  For example, although the
five other agencies we reviewed were routinely providing information
on employee performance ratings to the CPDF, SSA had not updated
rating information in the CPDF for over 2 years at the time of our
review.  SSA officials told us this lapse occurred because temporary
procedures that had been established to correct SSA's difficulty in
providing appraisal data to HHS proved to be cumbersome; as a result,
SSA did not provide its appraisal data to HHS for HHS to submit the
data to the CPDF for 1995.  According to SSA officials, SSA continued
to capture these data in its human resource management information
system, but HHS did not ask for the data, and SSA was not aware that
it was to report them to the CPDF. 

The importance of a data element to an agency can affect the level of
effort that the agency gives to ensuring the data element's accuracy. 
For example, some personnelists in the offices we visited said that
the accuracy of education level information was "of little concern"
to them.  In contrast, two other personnel offices reported taking
steps to improve the accuracy of this information.  Officials in one
of these offices (the Pensacola Naval Air Station) told us they had
updated the education level information on their employees as part of
an overall records review.  An official in the other office (State)
told us that promotions for certain of their employees are based, in
part, on education levels.  Therefore, the official said that
employees are asked to review such information maintained by the
agency and report needed changes. 

We also observed in previous work that agency-specific CPDF data
could be inaccurate.  For example, in 1997 the House Committee on
International Relations asked us to examine a discrepancy between the
number (17) of Schedule C political appointees\16 reported to
Congress by the Agency for International Development (AID) and the
number (0) that appeared in the CPDF for the period January 19, 1993,
through November 14, 1995.  Through our analysis of the CPDF data, we
determined that AID used the wrong legal authority when coding the
appointing authority for these individuals.  As a result, the
information in the CPDF (0) did not correctly identify any of the 17
individuals as political appointees. 

Inaccuracies in specific agencies' CPDF data, such as SSA not
submitting current rating of record data for 2 years and AID using
the wrong legal authority code for Schedule C political appointees,
can distort users' analyses, findings, and conclusions and result in
OPM's reporting on federal agencies that misinforms policymakers and
the public.  These examples also show that errors in agency-specific
data may go unnoticed for several years and that the accuracy of a
particular data element can vary from year to year for a particular
agency. 

OPM officials told us that they believe that the periodic accuracy
measurements that OPM does are a good indicator of problematic data
elements governmentwide.  For example, OPM's measurement of
historical accuracy for fiscal year 1994 discusses why errors
occurred and gives error rates for status and dynamics file data
elements governmentwide.  However, as we said earlier, OPM does not
provide the results of these measurements to non-OPM users of CPDF
data.  Therefore, non-OPM users of CPDF data are most likely not
aware of the findings of OPM's accuracy measurements.  In addition,
OPM officials said that their periodic accuracy measurements are not
useful for identifying errors in CPDF data elements at individual
agencies.  OPM officials said they sometimes become aware of
agency-specific inaccuracies in the CPDF when non-OPM users of the
data, such as us or the agencies affected, contact OPM about the
inaccuracies.  For example, OPM said that after it discovered that
AID Schedule C appointees were not identified in the CPDF, it began
working with AID to improve the future reporting on political
appointees. 

Awareness of inaccuracies in specific data elements and variation in
data accuracy among agencies is important because OPM and non-OPM
users rely on CPDF data to monitor and report on individual agencies'
demographics, compliance with government policies, or other
characteristics.  For example: 

  -- OPM's Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness uses
     CPDF data to monitor and report on individual agencies'
     compliance with selected Merit Systems Principles set out in
     title 5 of the United States Code;\17

  -- the National Performance Review used CPDF data in a 1993 report
     on Transforming Organizational Structures to compare the numbers
     of federal personnel by occupation;

  -- the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission used CPDF data in
     its fiscal year 1991 report to the President and Congress on
     affirmative employment programs for minorities and women and for
     hiring, placement, and advancement of people with disabilities
     in the federal government; and

  -- we use the data in some of our reports to Congress. 

According to these officials, OPM's current approach for measuring
CPDF data accuracy is not designed to include representative samples
for individual agencies, and such a sample would be significantly
larger than the 135 official personnel folders OPM examined to do its
latest measurement for fiscal year 1994 data.  OPM officials
recognize that the results of rigorous measurements of CPDF data
accuracy, i.e., measurements designed to test the accuracy of
individual agencies' data, could help users of CPDF data determine if
the data are sufficiently accurate for their purposes.  However, OPM
officials believe the cost of doing such measurements would be
prohibitive and would not guarantee that users would consider the
measurements when working with CPDF data or that agencies would use
the results of the measurements to improve the accuracy of their CPDF
data submissions. 


--------------------
\16 Upon specific authorization by OPM, agencies may make Schedule C
appointments to positions excepted from the competitive service that
are policy-determining or that involve a close and confidential
working relationship with the head of an agency or other key
appointed officials. 

\17 5 U.S.C.  2301. 


      OPM'S OFFICE OF THE
      ACTUARIES REPORTED THAT CPDF
      DATA ARE SUFFICIENTLY
      ACCURATE FOR ESTIMATING THE
      GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY FOR
      FUTURE RETIREMENT PAYMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.4

OPM's Office of the Actuaries uses CPDF data to help estimate the
federal government's liability for future payments of federal
retirement programs.  According to the actuary responsible for
calculating the federal government's liability for future retirement
payments to federal employees and their survivors, the office uses
CPDF data on adjusted basic pay, sex, birth date, retirement plan,
and service computation date in calculating the estimate of this
liability. 

We discussed with the actuary the error rates we found for these data
elements both as measured in our employee questionnaire and in
comparison to official personnel folders and records.  Except for
adjusted base pay, which was about 94-percent accurate in our
nongeneralizable comparison of official personnel folders and CPDF
data, we found all of these data to be 99 percent or more accurate. 
We shared these results with the actuary, and he told us that the
CPDF data elements were sufficiently accurate for making the
liability estimate.  The actuary also told us that erroneous national
economic assumptions were much more likely to affect his estimate
than inaccuracies in the CPDF data.  For instance, the actuary said
that slight variances in estimated future interest rates or rates of
return on investment could have a significant impact on the
government's estimated liability for future payments.  Furthermore,
the actuary said that the CPDF is not the only source of information
for certain information the office uses for its estimate.\18 For
example, the actuary told us that he makes independent calculations
of salaries by using data on contributions to pension plans.  In
addition, OPM received an unqualified opinion on its retirement
program financial statements for fiscal year 1997. 


--------------------
\18 The CPDF is only one of three major databases the office uses for
liability calculation.  The other two databases are the Postal Data
File and the Annuitant File. 


   CONCLUSION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3

Most of the 28 data elements we reviewed were 99 percent or more
accurate in the aggregate.  A minority of data elements we reviewed,
especially education level and rating of record, was much less
accurate.  OPM has found broadly similar results in its accuracy
measurements but has not informed non-OPM users of CPDF data of these
results even though the lower level of accuracy for some data
elements could affect the validity of analyses relying on those data
elements.  Further, the accuracy levels that both OPM and we have
found are generalizable only governmentwide.  Anecdotal evidence from
this review and our prior work illustrates that the accuracy of CPDF
data elements can vary significantly among agencies.  Nevertheless,
OPM and non-OPM analysts rely on CPDF data to monitor and report on
individual agencies' demographics, compliance with government
policies, and other characteristics.  OPM officials said that gauging
the accuracy of individual data elements by agency would require a
significantly larger measurement sample and thus increase its
measurement costs.  Informing users of CPDF data of the
governmentwide accuracy results and a specific caution that
individual agencies' results may vary significantly could
nevertheless be useful.  This would allow analysts and those using
CPDF products to make better informed judgments before using
agency-specific CPDF data and perhaps to seek information to
corroborate the CPDF data. 


   RECOMMENDATION TO THE DIRECTOR
   OF OPM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4

We recommend that the Director of OPM make the results of OPM's
measurements of historical accuracy available to all users.  To make
this information available OPM could post the results of its accuracy
measurements on its Internet web site including cautionary language
indicating that the accuracy of CPDF data elements may vary by
agency.  OPM could also inform users of the availability of this
information whenever it distributes CPDF data or reports. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:5

In a letter dated September 11, 1998, (see app.  VII), the OPM
Director said our findings are consistent with OPM's internal quality
measures.  In particular, the OPM Director cited our draft report's
findings that CPDF data, including the data used by OPM's Office of
the Actuaries to estimate the government's liability for future
retirement payments, were accurate. 

The OPM Director also said that although our findings were positive,
she believed many of the report's headings tended to obscure rather
than clarify the findings.  In addition, she said that the Results in
Brief discussion of CPDF accuracy standards and error rates in
education level data is so limited as to present only our view of
CPDF limitations.  According to the OPM Director, for "complete and
accurate information that provides a more balanced rationale for CPDF
specifications, one must look beyond the Results in Brief" to the
body of the report. 

We believe the view presented in the Results in Brief is balanced. 
For example, in the first paragraph, we report that about two-thirds
of the selected CPDF data elements it reviewed were at least
99-percent accurate.  We also disagree that the report's headings
tend to obscure rather than clarify the findings.  The report's
title, chapter titles, and main captions note the positive findings
of our review.  We believe, as the OPM Director acknowledged, that
our report clearly states that most of the CPDF data we reviewed were
accurate. 

The OPM Director did not specifically refer to our recommendation
that she make the results of OPM's historical measurements of the
CPDF's accuracy available to all users.  However, she said that OPM
will make available appropriate explanatory material to all CPDF
users.  As stated in this chapter, we believe that this explanatory
material should include the accuracy measurements. 


USERS GENERALLY REPORTED CPDF
PRODUCTS MET THEIR NEEDS BUT
FURTHER AWARENESS OF CAUTIONS ON
CPDF DATA COULD AFFECT USE OF THE
DATA
============================================================ Chapter 3

We used a questionnaire\19 to determine the extent to which selected
CPDF users believed (1) the CPDF data they used met their needs,
including whether the products were current, accurate, and complete;
and (2) they received sufficient cautions about the limitations of
CPDF data to use or present the CPDF data correctly.  OPM officials
identified 247 CPDF users as representing all of the requesters of
CPDF data products who corresponded directly with OPM in 1996.  We
surveyed those 247, and 40 said they did not use CPDF products.  Of
the remaining 207, 161 responded to our questionnaire as users of the
CPDF.  The results of our CPDF user questionnaire showed that the
majority of CPDF users responding believed that CPDF products met
their needs, including being sufficiently current, accurate, and
complete.  However, 29 of the 71 CPDF users said knowing about
cautions they were not made aware of would have affected the way they
used or presented CPDF data.  OPM officials said, and respondents'
answers to our questionnaire indicated, that the extent to which OPM
provided users cautions about the general limitations of the CPDF
varied.  OPM officials said they were considering creating a CPDF web
site that would allow OPM to make CPDF data more widely available and
to "bundle" or link specific cautions on limitations associated with
specific sets of data. 


--------------------
\19 The complete results of GAO's questionnaire appear in appendix V. 


   USERS GENERALLY REPORTED THAT
   CPDF DATA MET THEIR NEEDS
   INCLUDING BEING CURRENT,
   ACCURATE, AND COMPLETE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1

OPM distributes a variety of CPDF-based products, including data
extracts that consist of selected data elements, e.g., "service
computation date" or "duty station," which are provided on tape or
diskette to users; recurring reports, such as the Demographic Profile
of the Federal Workforce;\20 ad hoc reports containing specific
information from the CPDF, such as results of matching CPDF data with
other data; and the User Simple and Efficient Retrieval (USER)
system, which is an information retrieval system that provides
electronic access to the CPDF's status and dynamics files.  The
majority of the respondents to our questionnaire reported that the
data in the CPDF products they used met their needs, including being
current, accurate, and complete. 

For example, when asked about the extent to which CPDF products that
they used over the past 2 years (i.e., data extracts, recurring
reports, ad hoc reports, and the USER system) met their needs,
depending on the type of product, 67 to 81 percent of respondents
rated CPDF products as meeting their needs to a great or very great
extent.  When asked about the extent that these products were current
enough to meet their needs, the majority of CPDF users responding to
this question reported that the CPDF was, to a great or very great
extent, current enough to meet their needs.  Seventy to 73 percent of
the users who answered this question rated the data products we asked
about as current enough for their needs to a great or very great
extent. 

When asked about the extent to which they believed the CPDF products
that they used over the past 2 years were accurate, the majority (65
to 87 percent) of users responding to this question rated the
products we asked about as accurate to a great or very great extent. 
Similarly, the majority (71 to 89 percent) of the users responding to
our question about the completeness of CPDF data said they believe
the products listed were complete to a great or very great extent. 
Of those users of CPDF products who reported that specific products
met their needs to a great or very great extent, a large majority
also reported that those products were accurate and complete. 

In addition to the data products that we asked about, 15 respondents
to our questionnaire reported they used the Installation Level Data
Retrieval System (ILDRS)--a database system that uses CPDF data to
provide a "snap shot" of a federal agency's personnel.\21

When asked about the extent to which ILDRS was current enough to meet
their needs over the past 2 years, unlike the response we got from
most users about the currency of CPDF products, only 4 of these 15
respondents rated it as being current enough to meet their needs to
great or very great extent.  Eight of the 15 respondents rated ILDRS
as being accurate to a great or very great extent, and 9 of the 15
rated ILDRS as being complete to a great or very great extent. 


--------------------
\20 The Demographic Profile of the Federal Workforce report is
published biennially by OPM.  It replaces the Equal Employment
Opportunity Statistics series (1963-1980), and the biennial
Affirmative Employment Statistics report last published for September
1990. 

\21 ILDRS is used by evaluators in OPM's Office of Merit Systems
Oversight and Effectiveness in preparing for on-site evaluation
activities; preparing for the analysis of installation personnel
activity off-site; and producing a variety of statistical indicators
to measure the performance of human resource management systems at
the bureau, agency, and governmentwide levels. 


   MOST CPDF USERS SAID CAUTIONS
   OPM PROVIDES ON DATA
   LIMITATIONS WERE SUFFICIENT,
   BUT SOME SAID FURTHER AWARENESS
   OF CAUTIONS COULD AFFECT USE OF
   DATA
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2

OWI does not provide users of CPDF products with a uniform set of
cautions about the limitations of the data elements contained in the
CPDF.  The extent of the cautions OPM provides about the limitations
of CPDF data to users of CPDF-based products varies because,
according to OPM officials, the cautions are tailored to the CPDF
product being requested.  Users responding to our questionnaire
demonstrated a wide range of awareness of caution statements about
the CPDF data's limitations.  The majority of users responding to our
questionnaire reported that they were aware of the limitations of the
data they received and that the caution statements on limitations
provided by OPM were sufficient for them to correctly use the data. 


      OPM DOES NOT DISCLOSE TO
      USERS ALL THE CAUTIONS ABOUT
      THE CPDF'S LIMITATIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.1

Although OPM's CPDF-based governmentwide and ad hoc reports contained
some cautions on limitations, none of the reports we reviewed
disclosed all of the cautions on the CPDF.  We observed that CPDF
products, such as ad hoc reports, that OPM prepares to respond to
requests for specific information do not fully disclose all 28
cautions about the limitations of the CPDF that OPM officials
identified for us.\22 For example, OPM's response to a state's
request for CPDF data that were to be used in a data match to
identify federal employees by selected data elements, such as pay
grade, who graduated from state education and training programs
cautioned the requester that the CPDF contains records of personnel
only in executive branch agencies.  OPM did not warn the requester
that OPM's quality assurance procedures cannot detect agency
miscoding of certain data elements, such as pay grade (e.g.,
submission of grade 11 when the grade is actually 12).  In contrast,
the recurring reports that are widely distributed and that contain
governmentwide statistics, such as OPM's Biennial Report of
Employment by Geographic Area, contained quality measurements of the
data in the reports and error rates (i.e., estimated percentage of
data elements that failed edit checks) for each of the data elements
reported. 

OWI analysts routinely monitor and report to agencies submitting data
about the quality of their own submissions, that is, the degree to
which their data submissions fall within OWI's acceptable range of
data values, or edit standards.  This information is also made
available within OPM and to certain non-OPM users.  For example,
information on the percentage of data elements not passing CPDF edits
and the quality of the CPDF status and dynamics files is currently
available through OPM's USER system.  According to OPM, we, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, the Merit Systems Protection
Board, the Department of Agriculture, Department of Labor,
Environmental Protection Agency, National Guard, National Security
Agency, Congressional Budget Office, and the Office of Management and
Budget were trained and given access to this system by them.  OPM
officials reported that they do not know to what extent these
agencies use the quality reports available through the USER system. 

Although OPM does not make information about the quality of
individual agencies' CPDF submissions directly available to
nonfederal and most federal users, it bases some caution statements
to users about the limitations of CPDF data on this information.  For
example, in its Demographic Profile of the Federal Workforce as of
September 30, 1996, OPM informed users that about 0.4 percent of the
total CPDF records available for the report were rejected because
they failed edits on key data elements.  OPM also cautions users in
correspondence responding to requests for information and in its
recurring CPDF-based reports, such as OPM's Biennial Report of
Employment by Geographic Area, about certain general limitations of
the data, such as the exclusion of certain agencies' employees from
the CPDF's population coverage.  However, OPM does not caution users
about other limitations, such as that OPM may change submitted values
that are missing or known to be in error. 


--------------------
\22 A copy of our questionnaire containing the results from
respondents is in appendix VI.  For a complete list of the 28 caution
statements about the limitations of the CPDF, see question 6. 


      MOST CPDF USERS SAID CPDF
      PRODUCTS MET THEIR NEEDS,
      BUT SOME SAID FURTHER
      AWARENESS OF CAUTIONS ON
      CPDF DATA COULD AFFECT USE
      OF DATA
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.2

In our questionnaire to CPDF customers, we asked them to indicate how
many of 28 cautions about the CPDF OPM made them aware of.\23 The
CPDF users responding to our questionnaire showed a wide range of
awareness of the cautions.  For example, more than 95 percent of
those answering our question about CPDF cautions said they were
cautioned by OPM that certain agencies are exempt from reporting to
the CPDF.  However, only about 34 percent of those answering the
question said they were made aware that OPM may change submitted
values that are missing or known to be in error by matching records
to older files or making values consistent with statistical
assumptions.  According to OPM officials, these changes rarely
happen; and, when they do, they affect only one or two agencies once
every four quarterly files.  Overall, from 72 to 86 percent of the
users reported that the caution statements on limitations provided by
OPM were sufficient for them to correctly use or present the data
contained in the various CPDF products they used to a great or very
great extent.  However, 29 of the 71 CPDF users said knowing about
cautions they were not made aware of would have affected the way they
used or presented CPDF data. 

Of the 28 caution statements about limitations of the CPDF listed on
our questionnaire, the 5 that respondents were least aware of were
the following:  (1) a small number (0.2 percent) of employees have
more than 1 record in a CPDF status file; (2) the FBI does not report
duty station location for employees outside of the District of
Columbia; (3) OPM may change submitted values that are missing or
known to be in error by matching records to older files or making
values consistent with statistical assumptions; (4) there is no CPDF
standard format for submitting employee names; and (5) CPDF status
files are generally considered to reflect employment at the end of
the quarter, but they might actually reflect employment at the end of
the pay period just prior to the end of the quarter. 

OWI officials reported that OPM provides information about the
specific limitations of a data product to requesters but does not
provide information about other limitations, such as the list of 28
caution statements about CPDF data, to all requesters.  OPM officials
said that making caution statements about CPDF data limitations more
widely available might be useful to some users of the data.  However,
OWI officials believe this alone would not prevent the possible
misinterpretation of a specific set of data by a third- party user,
i.e., someone who does not receive CPDF data directly from OPM
reports or OPM.  Because OPM officials are not always aware of the
intended use of data requested by users, these officials may not be
aware of which of the 28 caution statements would be most beneficial
to those users.  For example, if a user intended to derive the
average education level of the employees of a particular agency but
only requested status file data as of a particular date from OPM, OPM
officials might not provide the user with the caution statement that
some data were collected at the time of appointment, e.g., education
level data, but not routinely updated.  Therefore, the average
education level derived for the agency would not be current and most
likely be understated.  OWI officials reported they have been
considering creating a CPDF web site that would allow OPM to make
CPDF data more widely available and allow OPM to bundle specific
caution statements on limitations with the sets of data. 


--------------------
\23 A copy of our questionnaire containing the results from
respondents is in appendix VI.  For a complete list of the 28 caution
statements about the limitations of the CPDF, see question 6. 


   MOST CPDF USERS SURVEYED RATED
   THE OVERALL QUALITY OF CPDF
   PRODUCTS AS EXCELLENT OR VERY
   GOOD
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3

OPM sends customer feedback questionnaires to its CPDF users to
determine if it is meeting their needs and to solicit suggestions for
improvement.  We reviewed 149 OPM customer feedback questionnaires
for the period covering March 27, 1990, through February 28, 1994,
and determined that 140 of the 149 (94 percent) of the CPDF users
responding rated the overall quality of the CPDF products they
received as very good or excellent.  The majority (from about 72 to
84 percent) of the CPDF users responding to our questionnaire also
rated the overall quality of the specific CPDF products they used as
very good or excellent. 


   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4

Most of the users of CPDF data we surveyed reported that they
believed that the data in those CPDF-based products they used met
their needs, including being current, accurate, and complete.  The
majority of users we sent questionnaires to reported they had
received sufficient cautions about the CPDF's limitations to use or
present the data correctly.  However, although OPM highlighted
cautions about CPDF data that are most likely to be applicable to the
interests of a particular requester of those data, it did not make
all 28 caution statements available to each of those requesters. 
Some users reported that knowing about cautions they were not made
aware of would have affected the way they used or presented CPDF
data.  In addition, users who obtain CPDF data regularly without a
specific request to OPM may not be cautioned about the limitations
associated with using the data. 


   RECOMMENDATION TO THE DIRECTOR
   OF OPM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:5

We recommend that the Director of OPM ensure that OPM make all 28
caution statements about limitations associated with CPDF data
available to all users.  In addition, it may be useful for OPM to
continue its practice of highlighting cautions on the data
limitations of the CPDF that are most likely to be applicable to the
interests of a particular requester of CPDF data.  To make this
information available to all users, OPM could (1) post, on its
Internet web site, a complete listing of the 28 caution statements
about limitations associated with CPDF data, (2) apprise all
recipients of CPDF data of the availability of the caution
statements, and (3) implement its proposal to bundle specific
cautions on limitations associated with specific sets of data. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:6

In a letter dated September 11, 1998, (see app.  VII), the OPM
Director said our findings were consistent with OPM's internal
quality measures.  The OPM Director cited our draft report's findings
that most of the users of CPDF data we surveyed rated the overall
quality of the data excellent to very good and believed they received
explanatory material that enabled them to use the data correctly. 

The OPM Director also said that although our findings were positive,
she believed many of the report's headings tended to obscure rather
than clarify the findings.  We believe the view presented in the
Results in Brief is balanced.  We also disagree that the report's
headings tend to obscure rather than clarify the findings.  The
report's title, chapter titles, and main captions note the positive
findings of our review.  We believe, as the OPM Director
acknowledged, that our report clearly states that most CPDF users'
needs were met. 

The OPM Director did not specifically refer to our recommendation
that she make all 28 caution statements about limitations associated
with CPDF data available to all users.  However, she said that OPM
will make available appropriate explanatory material to all CPDF
users.  As stated in this chapter, we believe that this explanatory
material should include all 28 caution statements about limitations
associated with CPDF data.  In addition, the OPM Director identified
additional agencies that have access to OPM's USER system, which we
added to the report where appropriate. 


SYSTEM SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT NOT
DOCUMENTED ACCORDING TO APPLICABLE
FEDERAL GUIDANCE, BUT SOFTWARE
APPEARS TO IMPLEMENT EDITS AS
INTENDED
============================================================ Chapter 4

From 1976 to 1995 applicable federal guidance recommended that
agencies use a structured approach for operating and maintaining
automated information systems, such as the Central Personnel Data
System.  The guidance suggested that agencies document the life cycle
of an automated information system from its initiation through
installation and operation.  Although the guidance was issued before
OPM's major redesign of the System software in 1986, OPM's OIT did
not document changes that were made to the System or have independent
testing done to ensure that changes to the software would perform as
intended.  OIT officials said that to their knowledge the System has
not had problems processing data reliably and that the System's
owner, OPM's OWI, concurred.  Our review of 718 of the 763 computer
instructions used by the CPDF showed that the System uses
instructions that should implement CPDF edits as intended.  OIT
officials said that for OPM to accomplish its future information
technology (IT) goals it will have to follow a structured approach
for computer application development.  Toward this end, OPM has
adopted a software development goal that would require such an
approach no later than fiscal year 2002. 


   OPM DID NOT DOCUMENT AN UPGRADE
   OF THE SYSTEM'S SOFTWARE AS
   RECOMMENDED IN FEDERAL GUIDANCE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1

From 1976 to 1995, federal guidance issued by the National Bureau of
Standards\24 and other federal agencies said that sufficient planning
and documentation are needed for cost-effective operation and
maintenance of information systems.  This guidance described the need
for organizations to adopt a structured, or System Development Life
Cycle (SDLC), approach.  An SDLC approach requires organizations to
document the phases of the development life cycle for automated
information systems and their software applications, including any
changes that are made to the systems or their software.  Although
federal guidance recommending that agencies follow best practices for
automated information systems' best practices were issued before
OPM's major redesign of the System's software in 1986, OIT did not
document changes that were made to the System.  OIT officials said
that to their knowledge there was no effect on the System from their
not having used the SDLC approach because they believe the System was
still reliable without it. 


--------------------
\24 The National Bureau of Standards has been replaced by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology. 


      FEDERAL GUIDANCE RECOMMENDED
      USING A STRUCTURED APPROACH
      TO SYSTEM'S SOFTWARE
      DEVELOPMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1.1

From 1976 to 1995, federal guidance existed to assist agencies as
they developed computer software applications and made changes in
their automated information systems from initiation through
operation.  For example, on February 15, 1976, the Department of
Commerce's National Bureau of Standards issued the Federal
Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Publication 38, which
provided basic guidance for the preparation of 10 document types that
agencies were to use in the development of computer software.  FIPS
Publication 64, which was issued on August 1, 1979, provided guidance
for determining the content and extent of documentation needed for
the initiation phase of the software life cycle.  In 1995 the
Secretary of Commerce approved the withdrawal of nine such
guidelines, including FIPS Publications 38 and 64.  However, agencies
that find these guidelines useful may continue to use them. 

The National Bureau of Standards' 1988 Guide to Auditing for Controls
and Security:  A System Development Life Cycle Approach, was to be
used as an audit program for auditing automated information systems
under development.  It included many guidelines that were published
from 1976 through 1984 that described the SDLC approach and its
requirements, including documentation.  This guide also referenced
other federal sources that required documentation, including federal
information resource management reports and OMB Circular A-130.\25

The federal government does not follow a single SDLC approach, but an
SDLC approach generally includes the following phases:  (1)
initiation (the recognition of a problem and the identification of a
need); (2) definition (the specification of functional requirements
and the start of detailed planning); (3) system design (specification
of the problem solution); (4) programming and training (the start of
testing, evaluation, certification, and installation of programs);
(5) evaluation and acceptance (the integration and testing of the
system or software) ; and (6) installation and operation (the
implementation and operation of the system or software, the budgeting
for it, and the controlling of all changes and the maintenance and
modification of the system during its life). 

SDLC documentation is important because it provides a basis for (1)
systematically making decisions while moving through a system's
life-cycle phases and establishing a baseline for future changes to
the system and (2) auditing systems that are under development. 
According to federal guidance, software acceptance testing, like
other testing of the automated information system, must be documented
carefully, with traceability of test cases to the system requirements
and the acceptance criteria.  Without acceptance testing, changes to
an automated information system cannot be verified as working as
intended. 

Ensuring an information system's reliability is not the only reason
for following an SDLC approach.  The National Bureau of Standards'
Guide to Auditing for Controls and Security:  A System Development
Life Cycle Approach states that if agencies use a structured approach
to systems development, the probability increases for a well-defined
life cycle and compliance to such a cycle.  According to the Guide,
an unstructured approach leads to free-form system development that
may result in serious omissions.  Without a structured approach to
software applications development, no assurance exists that adequate
testing, verification, validation, and certification will be done;
resources will be appropriately expended; the anticipated return on
investment will be achieved; or user requirements will be met.  In
addition, without documentation, the history of system changes can be
lost if staff changes occur, thus making future system modifications
or problem corrections more time-consuming and costly. 

During the evaluation and acceptance phase, the computer instructions
that have been written or modified undergo testing to verify that
they will perform according to user specifications.  Although federal
guidance said that some changes to the SDLC may be appropriate "if
the subject to be addressed is a major modification to a system
rather than the development of a new one," they also said that "the
need to continually assess the user's needs (validation) and to
ensure the conceptual integrity of the design (verification) are not
arguable." Thus, evaluation and acceptance testing is a phase that no
agency should leave out of an SDLC.  As we have described in guidance
for the Year 2000 computing challenge, acceptance testing should be
done by an independent reviewer.\26 An independent review helps to
ensure that internal controls and security are adequate to produce
consistently reliable results. 


--------------------
\25 OMB Circular No.  A-130 provides uniform governmentwide
information resources management policies as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.  Chapter 35. 

\26 Year 2000 Computing Crisis:  A Testing Guide, Exposure draft,
(GAO/AIMD-10.1.21, June 1998). 


      OPM DID NOT DOCUMENT UPGRADE
      OF THE SYSTEM'S SOFTWARE AS
      RECOMMENDED IN FEDERAL
      GUIDANCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1.2

According to OPM officials, since the System's development in 1972,
it has gone through only one major software upgrade, which was done
in conjunction with the replacement of the System's hardware. 
According to an OIT official, in 1985, OPM replaced its existing
Honeywell computer with an IBM computer and converted CPDF
application programs to run on the new hardware.  He also reported
that at about the same time, OPM decided to upgrade CPDF capabilities
by procuring several commercial software packages as well as
designing customized software.  According to OIT managers, the
software upgrade was done in 1986 to improve the timeliness and
accuracy of the CPDF because it was not working efficiently.  The OIT
managers who were responsible for the System at that time told us
that OPM did not document the phases of this major system software
modification as recommended in applicable federal guidance under an
SDLC approach.  Other OIT officials also told us that OPM did not
follow an SDLC approach for these 1986 CPDF changes or have
documentation that would show that acceptance testing was done.  In
addition, the testing that was done was not done by an independent
reviewer.  OPM officials said that because of time constraints, OIT
staff who designed the software modifications also did the acceptance
testing and did not document it. 

Although OIT did not follow an SDLC approach and did not have
documentation to show that the 1986 software upgrade passed
acceptance tests or that subsequent modifications to the System's
software applications worked as intended, its managers said that they
believe the System is reliable.  They said that they base their
beliefs on the fact that OPM's OWI, the System's owner, has not
complained that the System is not meeting its needs. 


   THE SYSTEM APPEARS TO IMPLEMENT
   CPDF DATA EDITS RELIABLY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2

Because OIT did not document software upgrades and modifications to
the System, we could not review this type of documentation as a basis
for independently evaluating the extent to which the System is
operating as intended.  As an alternative, of the 763 total edits
(700 call-relational\27 and 63 validity\28 ) that the system used at
the time we did our work, we reviewed the computer instructions
written to implement the 700 (470 dynamic file and 230 status file)
call-relational edits and 18 of the 63 validity edits that together
check the key status and dynamics data fields.  This approach allowed
us to indirectly determine if the System would reliably implement
CPDF data edits, the computer instructions that are to check the
validity of individual data elements. 

Putting test data through the System or otherwise testing the
reliability of the System's hardware and software under operating
conditions would have allowed us to directly test the reliability of
the System.  However, we did not attempt to directly test the
System's reliability.  OPM officials raised a concern about the
possible adverse effects of putting test data through the System. 
They were concerned that putting test data through the System could
disrupt its production schedule and introduce "bad" data that could
have unforeseeable consequences on the System's operations.  Because
of the lack of any indications that routine System operations to
process agencies' data submissions had caused data errors and the
concern raised by OPM, we decided to limit our test of the System's
reliability to a review of the computer instructions the System uses
to implement edits. 

Through our review, we determined that the computer instructions the
System uses would implement as intended the selected CPDF
call-relational edits and the validity edits used to identify data
inconsistencies in the data elements submitted by agencies.  We found
only one true error.  The computer instructions for a dynamics file
call-relational edit that is 1 of 20 subprograms used to edit the
prior basic pay data element was written in 1995 but was not applied
to agencies' dynamics file submissions.  CPDF programmers attributed
this error to a mistake and oversight on their part and not to a lack
of documentation. 


--------------------
\27 The call-relational edits are a series of subroutines or programs
within the "Dynamics Main Edit Module" and the "Status Main Edit
Module" that control the editing of an agency's dynamics and status
submission files.  These edits do not "edit" or make corrections to
any of the data elements.  They produce reports that show which
fields or data elements are incorrect or failed validity checks. 

\28 Validity edits check data against a defined range of acceptable
values to identify data that fall outside the range. 


   OPM HAS IMPLICITLY COMMITTED TO
   ADOPT AN SDLC APPROACH
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3

In January 1997, OPM initiated a project to develop and implement an
Information Technology Architecture Vision, which describes the
hardware, software, network, and systems management components of the
technical infrastructure required to support OPM business
applications and data.  This project was initiated in response to
various federal government initiatives intended to help ensure that
government agencies achieve their missions by changing management
practices concerning IT investment and operational decisions. 

The first phase of this project was the development of an OPM IT
architecture vision, which is intended to provide the framework
within which OPM can make IT decisions.  OPM published its IT
architecture vision in December 1997 and has as one of its components
a description of the technology infrastructure that will be needed to
support OPM's data and application needs.  Under this technology
infrastructure component, OPM is to adopt standards for application
development and plans to provide training to staff with the goal of
reaching a specified software development level of process maturity
as described in the Capability Maturity Model\SM (CMM3).\29

CMM3 was developed by the Software Engineering Institute, which is a
federally funded research and development center operated by Carnegie
Mellon University.  It has as a major purpose guiding process
improvement efforts in a software organization.  CMM3 uses five
maturity levels--(1) initial, (2) repeatable, (3) defined, (4)
managed, and (5) optimizing--to represent evolutionary plateaus on
the road to a high level of software process capability.  Each
maturity level after the first defines several key process
areas--groups of related software practices--all of which must be
satisfied for an organization to attain that level.  An OIT official
reported that OPM's IT is at level 1 and has a goal under its IT
architecture vision of reaching level 2 or higher by fiscal year
2002.  CMM3 recommends that an organization use specific software
development practices, tools, and methodologies.  It does not
stipulate how the organization must perform software development or
management activities. 

For level 2 and higher, CMM3 requires an agency to define and
document an SDLC approach that is to be used in the development,
modification, and management of automated information systems and
their software applications.  Therefore, by adopting level 2 as a
goal, OPM also is committing to follow an SDLC approach by fiscal
year 2002.  Because an SDLC approach under CMM3 applies to the
development, modification, and management of all significant systems,
once OPM has adopted an SDLC approach, it would need to make changes
to the CPDF that would conform to an SDLC approach. 

Successfully adopting an SDLC approach would be a significant change
for OPM because it said in its IT architecture vision that OPM's
application development style has been situational, with few common
approaches to system development.  The lack of an SDLC was a repeat
material weakness reported in independent audits of the financial
statements for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 of the retirement program
that were administered by OPM's Retirement and Insurance Service. 

OIT officials told us that they recognize the importance of having an
SDLC approach for accomplishing the applications development goals
OPM's IT architecture Vision and in its strategic plan for fiscal
years 1997 to 2002.  In the strategic plan, OPM includes a strategy
for ensuring that OPM's mission-critical computer systems, of which
the CPDF is one, are Year 2000 compliant in time to ensure that
services to customers are not interrupted.  This strategy includes
detailed tracking of progress on renovation and testing of each IT
system and validating and testing that software changes are working
as intended.  These steps generally conform to SDLC requirements. 

Other than efforts for making its information systems Year 2000
compliant, it is not clear whether OPM would follow an SDLC approach
when modifying any other systems, including the CPDF, before fiscal
year 2002.  Neither the IT architecture vision nor the strategic plan
specifically identifies when OPM plans to adopt an agencywide SDLC
approach. 


--------------------
\29 Capability Maturity Model\SM is a service mark of Carnegie Mellon
University, and CMM3 is registered in the U.S.  Patent and Trademark
Office. 


   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:4

OPM has not followed an SDLC approach to software development that
includes documenting the phases of such development as recommended in
applicable federal guidance.  OPM also has not documented the testing
of changes to software to verify that those changes worked as
intended or had such changes tested by an independent reviewer. 
Nevertheless, although we did not directly test the System's hardware
and software under operating conditions, our review of the computer
instructions the System uses to implement CPDF call-relational and
validity edits shows that the System should implement these edits
reliably. 

OPM has adopted a goal of achieving at least a CMM3 level 2 by 2002,
and doing so would require OPM to define and document an agencywide
SDLC approach.  OPM's current significant modification to CPDF and
other mission-critical systems to be Year 2000 compliant is following
a structured approach like an SDLC, but it is unclear when OPM might
adopt an SDLC approach for other future system changes. 

Documentation of system changes in part helps agencies make any
future system modifications more quickly and cost effectively, and
independent review of system or software changes helps ensure that
they will work as intended.  Therefore, following these procedures
for any changes to the CPDF before OPM adopts an agencywide SDLC
could be beneficial. 


   RECOMMENDATION TO THE DIRECTOR
   OF OPM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:5

We recommend that the Director of OPM document any changes to the
CPDF before OPM adopts an agencywide SDLC approach as specified in
CMM3 guidelines and that such changes be independently verified to
ensure that they will work as intended. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:6

In a letter dated September 11, 1998, (see app.  VII), the OPM
Director said our findings are consistent with OPM's internal quality
measures.  The OPM Director cited our draft report's findings that
the CPDF edit programs should function well. 

The OPM Director also said that although our findings were positive,
she believed many of the report's headings tended to obscure rather
than clarify the findings.  According to the OPM Director, for
"complete and accurate information that provides a more balanced
rationale for CPDF specifications, one must look beyond the Results
in Brief" to the body of the report. 

We believe the view presented in the Results in Brief is balanced. 
We also disagree that the report's headings tend to obscure rather
than clarify the findings.  The report's title, chapter titles, and
main captions note the positive findings of our review.  We believe,
as the OPM Director acknowledged, that our report clearly states that
the System's edit programs should operate as intended. 

The OPM Director agrees with our recommendation that OPM document all
future computer system and software changes and perform independent
verification that the changes function as intended.  She said that
OPM is committed to adopting a formal SDLC methodology and is
currently in the process of implementing interim measures to ensure
that the System is fully documented and continues to function
reliably.  The Director provided as an enclosure to her comments
OPM's plans for implementing an SDLC methodology. 


TO ENSURE CPDF DATA QUALITY, OWI
PROVIDES GUIDANCE TO AGENCIES AND
CHECKS DATA BEFORE ENTERING THEM
IN CPDF
=========================================================== Appendix I

This appendix contains an explanation of the process that the Office
of Personnel Management's (OPM) Office of Workforce Information (OWI)
reported it follows to ensure the quality of the data it enters into
the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF). 


   OWI SAYS IT PROVIDES AGENCIES
   WITH GUIDELINES ON HOW TO
   SUBMIT DATA TO THE CPDF
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

According to OWI officials, OWI provides agencies with guidelines on
which data elements and personnel transactions are to be reported,
when data submissions are to be made, and how the data must be
formatted and edited.  These guidelines are mostly contained in the
following OPM operating manuals:  (1) the Guide to the Central
Personnel Data File, which lists the data elements, such as current
appointment authority and Social Security number that OPM expects
agencies to submit from their personnel systems to the CPDF; (2) the
CPDF Edit Manual, which provides the edit standards (i.e.,
specifications and logic for computer instructions) needed for
software that checks data quality; (3) the Guide to Personnel Data
Standards, which lists data elements and the meanings of their
values; and (4) the Guide to Processing Personnel Actions, which
provides guidance for the processing of individual personnel actions. 
Under the guidelines, agencies are responsible for collecting
personnel data; editing them for validity, accuracy, and
completeness; and furnishing them to the CPDF. 

According to the Guide to the CPDF, agencies are to test the data
they provide to the CPDF to ensure that the data are accurate and
complete.  To help agencies ensure the quality of their data, OWI
officials told us they provide agencies with the CPDF Edit Manual,
which prescribes the data values to which agencies' data are to
conform before they are submitted.  To test their data's values,
agencies are to use the CPDF edits.  Agencies are responsible for
installing the edits on their automated personnel systems. 

These CPDF edits are to check the validity of individual data
elements as well as the proper relationship of values among
associated data elements.  For example, the edit for the sex data
element checks that the character used to define the data element is
either "M" for male or "F" for female; the edit identifies other
characters as errors.  OWI expects agencies to incorporate these CPDF
edits into their internal personnel data systems.  According to OWI
officials, these edits constitute the minimum level of quality
control; i.e, agencies have the option of incorporating additional
quality controls, such as testing the sampling data for accuracy
before submitting them, in addition to applying the CPDF edits. 

However, the CPDF edits cannot detect all types of errors.  For
example, an edit for the sex data element would not be able to detect
if the character "M" was incorrectly used to identify a female
employee.  According to OWI officials, even though they provide
agencies with the edits, errors still occur in submissions and are
identified by OWI's quality review process.  According to OWI
officials, errors in pay-related data elements often occur at the
beginning of the year because agencies make their
beginning-of-the-year submissions before they install edits that
reflect annual cost-of-living pay increases.  The Guide to the CPDF
also informs agencies about what data elements should be included in
their CPDF data submissions and the frequency and timing of the
submissions.  Coverage, frequency, and timing differ for two of the
CPDF's databases, or data files -- status and dynamics. 


   PURPOSE OF OWI'S ACCEPTANCE
   PROCESS IS TO ENSURE CPDF DATA
   QUALITY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

According to OWI officials, when OWI receives agencies' data
submissions, its CPDF team initiates the data acceptance process. 
OWI reported that the process consists of (1) verifying the number of
records\30 and agency/subelements, (2) doing edit checks of the data,
(3) assessing the aggregate consistency of the data, (4) doing final
acceptance reviews of the data, and (5) making the decision to accept
the data.  Figure 1.1 illustrates OWI's acceptance process. 

   Figure 1.1:  OWI's Acceptance
   Process

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   .

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\30 Each status record submitted represents one employee.  Each
dynamics record submitted represents one personnel action.  In
dynamics submissions, one employee may have no records or several
records. 


      VERIFYING NUMBER OF RECORDS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1

The CPDF team told us that they verify the number of records the
agencies send by comparing the number of records and
agency/subelements on the agencies' tape submissions to the number on
the transmittal sheets (prepared by the agencies) accompanying the
submissions.  According to the CPDF team members, if there is a
discrepancy, a member of the team usually informally contacts the
agency to determine why the discrepancy exists.  If the discrepancy
is not satisfactorily resolved, the team told us they ask the agency
to resubmit its data within 15 days. 


      DOING EDIT CHECKS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.2

According to the CPDF team, after they verify the number of records
and agency/subelements, they analyze individual agencies' submissions
using the same set of CPDF edits the agencies were expected to use to
prepare their submissions.  In addition, OWI also produces a Quality
Control Action Report that it uses for each status file submission
that displays employee population changes, key fields with error
rates of more than 1 percent, and changes in data element codes and
values.  According to OWI officials, OWI produces such a report to
evaluate the quality of submissions. 

According to OWI, it also provides the results of the edit checks to
agencies in reports on their status and dynamics file submissions. 
These reports are: 

  -- the Status Submission Quality Control Report, which displays the
     overall quality of the submission, the data elements with errors
     of more than 1.5 percent, and the 10 most frequently occurring
     types of errors;

  -- the Status File Overview Report/Unreleased Status File, which
     shows the count and percentage of records containing invalid
     data for those data elements for which a specific count by data
     value is not provided;

  -- the CPDF Error File, which shows each incorrect record with
     codes that identify the errors;

  -- the Dynamics Submission Quality Control Report, which shows the
     data elements with errors of more than 1 percent, the 20 most
     frequently occurring error codes, and the 5 most frequently
     occurring error codes by nature of action\31 category;

  -- the Dynamics Volume and Currency Report, which shows the volume
     and currency of transactions, cancellations, and corrections;
     and

  -- the CPDF Quality Control Report (Unreleased Dynamics Overview),
     which shows, by data element (or data element group within
     Nature of Action group) and for all Nature of Actions, the count
     of records that contain valid data values, the count of records
     that contain invalid data values, and the percentage of error
     for all records for which data were required or submitted.  OWI
     officials told us these reports are also produced when an
     agency's resubmission is received. 

According to OWI officials, agencies' status files and dynamics files
submissions are both reported on, and the CPDF team members told us
that they may refer to the reports when they contact agencies about
correcting problems with their submissions.  Although all the agency
personnelists we spoke with said their agencies regularly receive
reports from OWI on the quality of their status and dynamics files
submissions, only Department of Defense (DOD) officials said they use
them as a basis for improving future submissions. 

When problems are found with agencies' submissions during edit
checks, the CPDF team members told us they ask agencies to fix the
problems.  Team members and OWI managers and analysts reported that
in practice agencies do not always respond to OWI's initial request
for corrections, and trying to get agencies to improve their
submissions is an ongoing process that includes informal and formal
contacts with agencies.  CPDF team members said they examine the
results of edit checks for individual agency submissions to determine
if (1) key status file data elements exceed error thresholds spelled
out in the Guide to the CPDF or (2) key dynamics file data elements
and non key data elements exceed the team's judgmental thresholds for
allowable error rates.  Key data elements are the data elements that
OPM analysts use most frequently in preparing CPDF reports.\32 The
Guide to the CPDF specifically provides that agencies' status file
submissions may not be accepted if they contain records with errors,
in any of the key status file data fields, that exceed the percentage
allowable based on the size of the agency.  If the agency's
population is 1,000 or greater, no more than 3 percent of the records
may have errors or unusable data in any of the 23 key fields
identified by OPM.  For agencies with populations between 50 and
1,000, no more than 5 percent of the records may have errors or
unusable data in any of the key fields (see appendix III). 

According to the Guide to the CPDF, OWI may reject a dynamics file
submission if, in its judgment, the file contains significant errors. 
Examples of such errors are the total absence of certain categories
of actions (such as accessions or separations) or the total absence
of a key data element, such as agency/subelement.  CPDF team members
reported that in practice, the judgmental threshold for dynamics file
submissions is that no more than 50 percent of records can have
errors in any of the four key data fields. 

OWI officials also reported that the acceptance requirements
contained in the Guide to the CPDF are minimum requirements.  That
is, according to OWI officials, OWI can and does ask for corrections
and resubmissions for submissions that meet these requirements but
have significant errors in non key fields.  CPDF team members told us
that dynamics submissions may also be rejected if they exceed the
team's judgmental thresholds for allowable error rates.  Examples of
such errors are failure of any edit by over 20 percent of the records
when the number of records is greater than 20, failure of any 2 or
more related edits by 10 to 20 percent, or a significant number or
percent of fatal errors (those that result in rejection of a record
instead of the placement of asterisks in data fields within the
record).  According to OWI officials, they may also ask agencies to
resubmit dynamics data if the dynamics submission does not contain
what they believe is a reasonable volume of current records. 

If a status or a dynamic file is rejected, OWI officials are to
notify the agency's Director of Personnel.  Agencies are to correct
and resubmit rejected files within 15 calendar days following receipt
of the OWI notice.  However, the agency officials we spoke with told
us they sometimes may not respond to the CPDF team's inquiries about
problem submissions because sufficient staff may not be available, or
the agency may have higher priorities.  However, according to OWI
officials the computer software instructions that do the CPDF edit
checks place asterisks in those status and dynamics data fields that
contain erroneous data to ensure that incorrect data are not
knowingly entered into the CPDF. 


--------------------
\31 The specific personnel action used to create or change a civilian
personnel record. 

\32 The key status file fields are agency/subelement; basic pay;
current appointment authority; date of birth; duty station; grade,
level, class, rank, or pay band; handicap; health plan; locality
adjustment; occupation; pay basis; pay plan; pay status; position
occupied; race or national origin; service computation date; sex;
special pay table identifier; supervisory status; tenure; veterans
preference; veterans status (active military service); and work
schedule.  The key dynamics file fields are nature of action,
effective date of action, Social Security number, and
agency/subelement code. 


      ASSESSING THE AGGREGATE
      CONSISTENCY OF THE DATA
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.3

While waiting for agencies to respond to CPDF team members' requests
for data corrections or resubmissions, OWI officials told us it
places all agencies' submissions in a holding status on the system. 
According to these officials, the amount of time the data are kept in
the holding status varies, depending on how long it takes agencies to
fix initially identified problems and any additional problems that
may be identified as a result of further team analyses.  However, OWI
officials told us, OWI's internal guidelines establish processing
goals of 49 calendar days for status file submissions and 101 days
for dynamics file submissions, from the time they are received by OWI
to the time they are entered into the CPDF.  OWI's Assistant Director
told us he considers these guidelines along with (1) the CPDF team's
recommendation; and (2) the Known Problems reports, which are
produced by the CPDF team members.  These reports summarize the
results of agency file submissions and may include a description of
significant improvements, a listing of agencies that have not yet
submitted data, the status of OWI's requests for those submissions, a
summary of any problems with the data identified in earlier reports,
and the results of efforts to resolve these problems.  According to
the Assistant Director, he and his team leaders review the Known
Problems reports and decide whether or not to proceed to the next
step in creating the file, i.e., combining the submissions into a
single file.  According to OWI officials, the Known Problems reports
may be revised if the CPDF team has planned to continue to work with
one or more agencies or if the Assistant Director asks the CPDF team
to continue to work with the agencies to get file resubmissions. 


      DOING FINAL ACCEPTANCE
      REVIEWS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.4

According to OWI's Assistant Director, he decides when the data are
ready to be released from the holding area on the system for
acceptance review.  The Assistant Director told us the data are
released in the aggregate along with several reports.  According to
him, the reports include the latest version of the Known Problems
reports, which has been updated to show the extent to which status or
dynamics file submissions' problems have been solved.  In addition,
he said these status file reports are released:  the CPDF Overview -
Released Status File, Status Change, and SF 113-A Benchmarking
reports.  Three reports are released for the dynamics file as well: 
the Released Dynamics Volume and Currency, Released Dynamic
Overview,\33 and Quarterly Status/Dynamics Compare reports. 
According to OWI officials, OWI statisticians use these reports along
with their own reviews of the files to determine if the file should
be made available for general use. 

According to OWI officials, OWI statisticians do a trend analysis of
the data, which looks for variances.  For example, does the number of
status file records for agency employees change unexplainably from
one reporting period to the next?  OWI officials told us that OWI
also compares the data to the agencies' Monthly Report of Federal
Civilian Employment (SF 113-A) it receives.  The SF 113-A report
covers all federal civilian hires.  In addition, according to OWI,
the data are compared to the agency profiles to identify variances,
and data in status files may be compared to interim dynamics file
submissions in the status release process.  For example, when an
employee's pay grade changes between an agency's December and March
status file submissions, analysts review the interim dynamics file
submissions to determine if the change is reflected.  According to
OWI officials, the comparison between status and dynamics files is
done routinely, producing a standard report, as part of the dynamics
release process.  They also said that variances or inconsistencies
identified through trend analysis, SF 113-A comparison, or status and
dynamics file comparison may result in OWI statisticians asking the
CPDF team to go back and work with the agencies to improve the files. 


--------------------
\33 The Released Dynamics Overview report is an updated version of
the Unreleased Dynamics Overview report. 


      MAKING THE DECISION TO
      ACCEPT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.5

According to OWI officials, after considering the results of the
acceptance review; consulting with internal OPM users of CPDF data
(e.g., the Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness) and
OWI subject area experts and statisticians; and weighing the possible
benefit of giving agencies more time to correct data problems versus
the cost of delaying the data's release into the CPDF, OWI's
Assistant Director makes the final decision about whether or when to
allow the data to be added to the CPDF.  The Assistant Director said
the key consideration in delaying the entry of the data into the CPDF
is whether possible improvements in the quality of the data
submission warrant the delay.  That decision, according to the
Assistant Director, is not based on well-defined or well- documented
criteria; it is a judgement call he makes. 

Although OWI's Assistant Director said that meeting timeliness
standards plays a part in making his decision about how much effort
and time OWI will spend to improve the data, he told us that data
quality is not sacrificed for the sake of timeliness.  However,
according to the Assistant Director, if the CPDF team and OWI are
unable to get an agency to correct the data in a timely manner, the
release of file data may be delayed; OWI may substitute status file
data from a previous submission instead of the incorrect or problem
status file data; or, on rare occasions, in order to maintain a
file's useability, OWI may change submitted values that are missing
or known to be in error.  OWI officials reported that they do not
knowingly accept wrong or miscoded data into the CPDF because the
edit check process replaces agency data that do not pass the edits
with asterisks. 


RESULTS OF GAO AND OPM
MEASUREMENTS OF CPDF ACCURACY
========================================================== Appendix II

                                           Percentage of errors
                                               found by GAO
                                                approaches
                                          ----------------------
                                                                   Percentage of
                                                                    errors found
                                                                        by OPM's
                                          Result      Rusults of        accuracy
                                            s of        employee     measurement
                                          compar    verification      for fiscal
Data element                                ison   questionnaire       year 1994
----------------------------------------  ------  --------------  --------------
Annuitant indicator                         0.0%            0.0%            0.0%
Effective date of action                     0.0              \a              \a
Duty station                                 0.0             0.3             0.0
Agency/Subelement                            0.0             0.0             0.7
Handicap                                     0.0             2.7              \a
Nature of action code                        0.0              \a              \a
Position occupied                            0.0              \a             0.0
Race or national origin                      0.0             2.0              \a
Retirement plan                              0.0             0.0             0.0
Social Security number                       0.0             0.0              \a
Tenure                                       0.0              \a             0.7
Work schedule                                0.0             0.0             0.7
Birth date (month and year)                  0.9             0.0             0.0
Occupation                                   0.9             0.0             0.0
Personnel office identifier                  0.9              \a             0.7
Service computation date (month and          0.9             0.4             0.7
 year)
Sex                                          0.9             0.1             1.5
Employee name\b                              1.8             0.9              \a
Pay rate determinant                         1.8              \a             0.0
Legal authority code                          \b              \a           \\\a
Pay plan/grade                               2.7             0.7              \a
Veterans preference                          3.5             0.7             0.0
Adjusted basic pay                           6.2             1.2              \a
Veterans status                              7.1             2.2             5.2
Current appointment authority                9.7              \a             4.5
Rating of record                            15.9             4.7             5.1
Education                                   23.0            26.7             8.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  GAO's questionnaire and comparison included status and
dynamics file data.  The OPM accuracy measurement for fiscal year
1994 results in the table are for status file data only. 

\a This data element was not included in GAO's comparison of the CPDF
and agency personnel records. 

\b For this data element, we could not determine the percentage of
errors using the universe of 113 employees because some employees had
no transactions for fiscal year 1996. 

Source:  GAO's analysis and OPM's Accuracy measurement of 1994 CPDF
data. 


CPDF DATA ELEMENTS BY FILE
LOCATION, AS OF FEBRUARY 1998
========================================================= Appendix III

As of February 1998, the CPDF consisted of 95 separate data elements. 
Of this number, 68 are reported by agencies in their monthly and
quarterly dynamics and status file submissions.  Of the remaining 27
data elements, 23 are computer generated and are used by OPM and
others in longitudinal surveys and other analyses of federal
employees.  Agencies use three data elements (effective date of
personnel action being corrected, nature of action being corrected,
and Social Security number being corrected) only when there are
corrections to these key data elements in the dynamics file. 
Agencies report a final data element, organizational title, in the
CPDF's Organizational Component Translation database. 

                                    Reported by
          Data element                 agency       File where located
--------------------------------  ----------------  ------------------
                                    Reported by
Data element                           agency       Status   Dynamics
--------------------------------  ----------------  ------  ----------
Adjusted basic pay                       \a                    
Agency/subelement\b                                  K         K
Annuitant indicator                                  
As of date                               \a           
Award amount                                                   
Bargaining unit                                      
Basic pay                                            K         
Benefit amount                                                 
Consolidated metropolitan                \a                    
 statistical area
Cost of living allowance                 \a                    
Creditable military service                                   
Current appointment authority                        K         
Date of birth                                        K         
Duty station                                         K         
Dynamics category                        \a                     
Education level                                               
Effective date of personnel                                    K
 action
Effective date of personnel              \c
 action being corrected
Employee name\d                          
Fair Labor Standards Act                             
 Category
Federal employees' group life                        
 insurance
Federal employees' retirement                        
 system coverage
Frozen service                                                
Functional classification                            
Grade, level, class, rank, or                        K         
 pay band
General Schedule (GS) related            \a                    
 grade
Handicap                                             K         
Health plan\e                                        K
Individual/group award                                         
Instructional program                                         
Legal authority                                                
Law enforcement officer                  \a                    
 geographic pay area
Locality adjustment                                  K         
Locality adjustment indicator            \a
Locality pay area                        \a                    
Metropolitan statistical area            \a                    
Nature of action                                               K
Nature of action being corrected         \b
Occupation                                           K         
Occupational category                    \a                    
OPM oversight office                     \a                    
OPM service center                       \a                    
Organizational component                                      
Organizational title\                    \f
Pay basis                                            K         
Pay plan                                             K         
Pay rate determinant                                          
Pay status                                           K
Personnel office identifier                                   
Position occupied                                    K         
Previous retirement coverage                                   
Prior adjusted basic pay                 \a                     
Prior basic pay                                                
Prior duty station                                             
Prior grade, level, class, rank,                               
 or pay band
Prior law enforcement officer            \a                     
 geographic pay area
Prior locality adjustment                                      
Prior locality pay area                  \a                     
Prior occupation                                               
Prior pay basis                                                
Prior pay plan                                                 
Prior pay rate determinant                                     
Prior step or rate                                             
Prior work schedule                                            
Processing flag                          \a                     
Race or national origin                              K         
Rating of record (level)                                      
Rating of record (pattern)                                    
Rating of record (period)                                     
Retained grade                                       
Retained pay plan                                    
Retained step                                        
Retention allowance                                           
Retention allowance indicator          \a, g
Retirement plan                                               
Senior pay levels indicator              \a                    
Service computation date (leave)                     K         
Sex                                                  K         
Social security number                                        K
Social security number being             \b
 corrected
Special pay table identifier                         K
Staffing differential                                         
Staffing differential indicator        \a, g
Step or rate                                                  
Supervisory differential                                      
Supervisory differential               \a, g
 indicator
Supervisory status                                   K         
Tenure                                               K         
Total pay                                \a                    
Type of appointment                      \a                    
U.S. citizenship                                     
Veterans preference                                  K         
Veterans status (active military                     K         
 service)
Work schedule                                        K         
Year degree or certificate                                    
 attained
======================================================================
Total 95                                 68         23 key    4 key
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Key data elements are indicated by the letter "K." The data
elements of the status and dynamics files are not mutually exclusive. 
As the table indicates, in many cases the same data element applies
to both files. 

\a Some data elements are computer-generated and are used by OPM and
others for longitudinal studies or other analysis of federal
employees and are not reported by agencies. 

\b Only the two coded positions of this data element that designate
the agency are considered key. 

\c Agencies use this data element to correct entries made to the
preceding data element. 

\d Although reported in agencies' dynamics submission, to protect the
confidentially of employee records OPM stores names separately from
the major CPDF data bases. 

\e Health Plan is required to be submitted only in March and
September and is considered key for those submissions. 

\f This data element is reported in a separate CPDF data file called
the "Organizational Component Translation" database. 

\g This data element is reported in a separate CPDF data file called
the "Longitudinal History File."


DATA ELEMENTS WITH THE HIGHEST
RATE OF INACCURACY
========================================================== Appendix IV

According to our review, the following data elements had the highest
level of inaccuracy. 


   RATING OF RECORD
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1

The rating of record indicates an employee's most recent rating or
performance appraisal.  We found 18 rating of record mismatches in
our review, which compared the 113 employees' official personnel
folders or agency records with the CPDF.  In one case, the CPDF
status file showed that an employee had not been rated when agency
records showed a rating.  In another example, the CPDF did not
reflect the most current rating for seven employees at one personnel
office.  A human resources official from that office told us that it
takes about 2 months from the end of a rating period for a rating to
be prepared and entered into the CPDF.  Ten Social Security
Administration employees had obsolete ratings information in the
CPDF.  We were informed that the agency had inadvertently failed to
update ratings information in the CPDF since fiscal year 1995, but
the agency was in the process of correcting the problem. 

OPM found a similar situation in a 1992 CPDF accuracy survey.  In
that survey, OPM noted that "agencies commonly submit .  .  .  rating
of record actions to CPDF several months after the ending date of the
rating period to which they apply.  We believe that most of the
errors for rating of record in the CPDF are due to the presence of
obsolete or superseded ratings resulting from agency inattention to
timely processing of rating of record data."


   EDUCATION LEVEL
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2

The education level data element is intended to reflect the highest
education level achieved by a federal employee.  In our review of
official personnel folders, we found education level to be inaccurate
for 26 of the 113 employees whose records we reviewed.  The
inaccuracies varied from one personnel office to another.  We found
inaccuracies ranging from 9 of 20 employees at 1 personnel office to
2 of 20 at another.  In 24 of the 26 cases, education levels were
understated in the CPDF. 

Human resource officials at the personnel offices we visited
attributed the relatively high number of errors to several reasons. 
For example, personnel offices do not always update education level
coding for employees who obtain additional education after being
hired by the government.  Although the higher level of education may
be reflected in the employees' personnel folders (e.g., on updated
applications for federal employment when employees apply for
promotions), the coding is not necessarily changed in the agencies'
automated records or in the CPDF.  This may occur because human
resource staff are initially concerned about employees meeting the
minimum education requirements for their jobs.  Any additional
education gained by the employees after being hired is of less
importance and may not always be reflected when education levels are
being coded for agency files and the CPDF.  In addition, the CPDF
contains 22 education level codes, many of which describe levels of
education between formal degree programs.  For example, one code is
to be used for employees who have had some college courses but less
than 30 semester hours; while another code is to be used for those
who have done some work at a level higher than a 6-year degree but
have no additional higher degree.  According to some personnel
officials, when coding education levels, some personnelists may be
more concerned about the employee having a high school diploma or a
Bachelor's, Master's, or Doctorate degree and not the levels between
degrees.  According to the officials, the reason for this may be
because education level codes in automated agency files and in the
CPDF do not affect pay or any other personnel matter.  Therefore, due
care is not always exercised when education levels are coded. 

In a 1996 CPDF accuracy survey, OPM also noted a relatively high
error rate in the CPDF for education level.  OPM noted that
"education level values appear reliable for determining general
educational groupings (e.g., less than high school, high school
graduate, some college) but less reliable when used to determine the
precise education level."

We also found that data were missing in over 1.0 percent of the
records in the September 1996 CPDF status file for education level. 
Under certain circumstances, agencies may leave some blanks in their
data submissions if they do not have complete information on an
employee.  Also, OPM may delete data that do not pass its edits and
replace the data with asterisks.  We reviewed the frequency of blank
or asterisk-filled data fields in the September 1996 CPDF status
file.  The highest occurrence of blank or asterisk-filled
fields--1.07 percent--was in education level. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
GAO'S CPDF EMPLOYEE VERIFICATION
OF PERSONNEL INFORMATION
QUESTIONNAIRE
========================================================== Appendix IV



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VI
GAO'S CPDF RELIABILITY SURVEY
========================================================== Appendix IV



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VII
COMMENTS FROM THE OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
========================================================== Appendix IV



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS
======================================================== Appendix VIII


   GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
   WASHINGTON, D.C. 
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VIII:1

Steven J.  Wozny, Assistant Director (202) 512-5767
Domingo Nieves, Evaluator-in-Charge
Jeffrey W.  Dawson, Evaluator
Michael J.  O'Donnell, Advisor
Gregory H.  Wilmoth, Supervisory Social Science Analyst
Stuart M.  Kaufman, Senior Social Science Analyst
Kiki Theodoropoulos, Senior Evaluator
George H.  Quinn, Jr., Computer Analyst


   ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION
   MANAGEMENT DIVISION,
   WASHINGTON, D.C. 
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VIII:2

Brian C.  Spencer, Technical Assistant Director


   DENVER REGIONAL OFFICE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VIII:3

Joseph J.  Buschy, Senior Evaluator


*** End of document. ***